In Matter of State of New York v. Randy M. (57 AD3d 1157 [3d Dept 2008]), Randy M. was convicted in May 1999 of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The court imposed concurrent sentences of five years and one year in prison, respectively, but did not impose the mandatory period of five years of postrelease supervision required by Penal Law 70.45. DOCS unilaterally imposed PRS on Randy M. upon his release from prison on March 20, 2003. in August 2007, Randy M. was reincarcerated for violating the conditions of his supervision. in July 2008, DOCS, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 10.05 [b]), provided the Office of Mental Health and the Attorney General with notice that Randy M. may be a detained sex offender who was nearing his anticipated release date. The Attorney General obtained a securing order from Erie County Supreme Court to prevent Randy M.'s release from DOCS's custody. That same day, Kings County Supreme Court resentenced Randy M. to his original sentence plus five years of postrelease supervision. The Attorney General then commenced a sex offender civil management petition and obtained an ex parte order authorizing DOCS to retain Randy M. pending a Mental Hygiene Law probable cause hearing. Randy M. then sought a writ of habeas corpus directing his immediate release from custody. Supreme Court partially granted Randy M.'s application, finding that DOCS could not retain Randy M. in its custody on the basis of the alleged violation of postrelease supervision. But instead of ordering immediate release, the court ordered that Randy M.'s release be stayed pending the probable cause hearing. Randy M. then moved to dismiss the civil management proceeding. The court denied that motion. Randy M. appealed the orders denying his motion to dismiss the civil management proceeding and denying his release in the habeas corpus proceeding. The Randy M. court held (at 1159, 870 NYS2d 582): "Because respondent was not lawfully in the custody of an agency with jurisdiction and was not a detained sex offender, he was entitled to dismissal of the civil management proceeding and should immediately be released. It is now clear that DOCS has no authority to impose any portion of a sentence, including mandatory postrelease supervision, and any administratively-imposed aspect of a sentence is a nullity (see Matter of Garner v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358, 362, 889 NE2d 467, 859 NYS2d 590 [2008]; Matter of Dreher v. Goord, 46 AD3d 1261, 1262, 848 NYS2d 758 [2007]; see also Matter of Marino v. Fischer, 52 AD3d 985, 986, 858 NYS2d 610 [2008]). As Supreme Court correctly held, and the Attorney General does not contest, respondent could not validly be incarcerated for violating a term of postrelease supervision which was not properly imposed . . . The court's later resentencing of respondent did not operate retroactively to cure the illegal imposition of postrelease supervision, meaning respondent could not validly be punished for violating the terms of postrelease supervision until after it was imposed by a court."