Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates) – New York Appellate Digest

THE ABSENCE OF BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE OF THE INCIDENT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED; THE CORRECTION OFFICER’S VERSION OF EVENTS WAS CONTRADICTED BY PETITIONER AND THREE WITNESSES; THEREFORE THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORRECTION OFFICER, WHICH WAS CREDITED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, LACKED SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF RELIABILITY TO SATISFY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversed the finding that petitioner-inmate violated prison disciplinary rules There was no body-worn camera footage of the incident, and no explanation for its absence. A single corrections officer wrote a report about the incident which was credited by the Hearing Officer. In her report the officer claimed petitioner “threw” a chair onto the floor and was yelling at other prisoners. The petitioner and three prisoners testified that petitioner did not act in anger, was not yelling at other prisoners, and the chair had been knocked or tipped over. The Third Department concluded the evidence was insufficient to support any disciplinary-rule violations:

… [W]here, as here, the record presents competing versions of a discrete event and the determination turns on the acceptance of one account over another, the reliability of the credited testimony must be assessed in context. That context includes the absence of any objective documentation of the incident where there is every reason to believe that such proof should have existed.

At the time of the subject incident, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision had implemented a body-worn camera policy pursuant to internal directive, reflecting an institutional recognition that recording such encounters is imperative for both safety and transparency … . We need not decide the force of that directive to hold that it informs the nature of proof that may reasonably be expected in incidents of this kind. In the same vein, it must also be observed that, since the subject incident, the Legislature has codified the requirement of body-worn cameras in correctional settings … , thus underscoring the State’s recognition that objective evidence of interactions involving incarcerated individuals is not only critical but readily obtainable … .

Here, no such objective evidence was produced. Importantly, the record is entirely silent as to whether recording devices were being properly utilized and, if not, why not … . In the face of that evidentiary gap, we find that the credited testimony lacks sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the substantial evidence standard. We therefore reverse. Matter of McPherson v Hill, 2026 NY Slip Op 03216, Third Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: In prison disciplinary hearings, the unexplained absence of body-worn camera footage of an incident at which the testifying correction officer was present may call into question the reliability of the correction officer’s testimony.

May 21, 2026

Appeals, Correction Law, Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)

THE REQUIREMENT IN THE LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) THAT A HEARING BE HELD WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF PLACING AN INMATE IN A SEGREGATED HOUSING UNIT (SHU) IS “DIRECTORY,” NOT MANDATORY; THEREFORE ANY ISSUE RELATED TO A DELAY IN HOLDING THE HEARING MUST BE PRESERVED FOR REVIEW AND THE INMATE MUST DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined the requirement that, under the Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT Act), a disciplinary hearing be held within five days of an inmate’s placement in a segregated housing (SHU) is directory, not mandatory. Therefore the issue must be preserved for review and the inmate must demonstrate prejudice resulting from any delay in holding the hearing:

… [W]hen examining the entirety of statutory provisions enacted by the HALT Act with respect to the use of segregated housing, numerous provisions expressly provide directives that limit respondent’s authority to utilize segregated housing or mandating that incarcerated individuals be released or diverted to RRU [residential rehabilitation unit] … . The exclusion of any such language from the time frame in which a hearing must be held after an incarcerated individual is placed in segregated housing suggests that it was not intended to deprive respondent of his authority to proceed with a hearing in the event of a violation. We therefore find that the language requiring that a hearing be completed no later than five days after an incarcerated individual is placed in prehearing segregated confinement remains directory under the HALT Act … . Matter of Guerrero v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 01263, Third Dept 3-5-26

March 5, 2026

Attorneys, Correction Law, Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)

PURSUANT TO THE “HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT),” AN INMATE WHO IS FACING SEGREGATED CONFINEMENT HAS A RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL AT THE DISPOSITIONAL PHASE OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, determined that the incarcerated petitioner had a right to have his attorney present during the dispositional phase of the disciplinary hearing after he was found guilty of possession of a weapon. The Hearing Officer had determined counsel’s presence was “no longer necessary” in violation of the “Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act” (the HALT Act—Correction Law 137):

… [F]ollowing the passage of the HALT Act, Correction Law § 137 provides that an incarcerated individual “shall be permitted to be represented” during a disciplinary hearing that may result in placement in segregated confinement “by any attorney or law student, or” with certain limitations, “any paralegal or incarcerated person” (Correction Law § 137 [6] [l]). The pertinent regulations have since also been amended to specify that “[w]here an incarcerated individual is placed in, or pending possible placement in, segregated confinement pending a disciplinary hearing or superintendent’s hearing, such incarcerated individual shall be permitted to be represented by,” as is relevant here, “an attorney, having good standing, admitted to practice in any state” (7 NYCRR 251-5.2 [a] [1]).

Therefore, pursuant to both statute and regulation, if an incarcerated individual so chooses, he or she is entitled to have representation present during a disciplinary hearing when the permissible sanctions include the imposition of segregated confinement. Contrary to the Hearing Officer’s determination, the dispositional phase is an integral aspect of the disciplinary hearing and the statutory and regulatory right to representation at issue here extends to that phase of the hearing. Matter of Wingate v Martuscello, 2025 NY Slip Op 07048, Third Dept 12-18-25

December 18, 2025

Correction Law, Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates), Mental Hygiene Law

CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS A DAY, WITH AT LEAST SEVEN HOURS OF OUT-OF-CELL TIME PER DAY, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, an incarcerated person with serious mental illness, did not violate the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT Act) but did violate the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (SHU Exclusion Law):

… [P]etitioner remained in the RMHU [residential mental health treatment unit] where he received at least seven hours of out-of-cell time, therefore he was not in segregated confinement, which is defined as “the confinement of an incarcerated individual in any form of cell confinement for more than [17] hours a day” (Correction Law § 2 [23]). * * * Therefore, based on the foregoing, DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] did not violate Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) by placing petitioner in the RMHU longer than three days without the requisite findings under the HALT Act.

However … we do find that the disciplinary sanctions, as written, violated the SHU Exclusion Law as set forth in Correction Law § 401. To that end, Correction Law § 401 provides that “[a]n incarcerated individual . . . shall not be sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct [in an RMHTU], or removed from the unit and placed in segregated confinement or a[n RRU (residential rehabilitation unit)], except in exceptional circumstances where such incarcerated individual’s conduct poses a significant and unreasonable risk to . . . safety . . . and . . . has been found to have committed an act or acts defined in [Correction Law § 137 [k] [6] [ii]]” (Correction Law § 401 [5] …). “Because the statute is phrased in the disjunctive” … , DOCCS must find that exceptional circumstances existed and a Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) act occurred if either 1) the incarcerated individual is sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct on the unit or 2) the incarcerated individual is removed and placed in segregated confinement or an RRU. Here, the former applies as petitioner was sanctioned, in writing, with segregated confinement in the RMHU but was not found, in a written determination, to have committed an act pursuant to Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii), a fact which is uncontested by either party. Thus, the written disciplinary sanction was in violation of the SHU Exclusion Law. Therefore, the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon petitioner must be annulled. Matter of Walker v Commissioner, N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 02834, Third Dept 5-8-25

May 8, 2025

Appeals, Constitutional Law, Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)

HERE THE FACILITY REVIEW OFFICER VIEWED THE VIDEO EVIDENCE AND EXPRESSED THE CONCLUSION PETITIONER HAD VIOLATED PRISON RULES BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING; THAT SAME OFFICER DECIDED PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL; THAT SCENARIO VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination petitioner had violated prison rules, determined the fact that the facility review officer reviewed petitioner’s misbehavior report and decided the administrative appeal violated due process:

Petitioner contends … he was denied due process because the facility review officer that reviewed his misbehavior report … also decided petitioner’s administrative appeal of the guilty determination as the facility superintendent’s designee … . … Generally, the facility review officer is charged with reviewing each misbehavior report issued and, considering the seriousness of the alleged violations in the report, determining the appropriate tier level classification … . Here, petitioner, both during the hearing and in his administrative appeal, challenged certain actions taken by the facility review officer concerning his review of the misbehavior report. … [I]n reviewing the misbehavior report, the facility review officer viewed the video that was to be presented as evidence of guilt at the hearing. Based upon his viewing of the video, the facility review officer informed petitioner in a memorandum prepared prior to the disciplinary hearing that the video shows “you and your visitor acting in an unacceptable manner in the visit room.” The review officer further states “that the video does not show your penis being exposed as stated in the [misbehavior] report that’s why I downgraded the tiering, . . . it does clearly show your visitor with her right hand between your legs in the groin area and her hand moving in a stroking motion.” In light of the fact that certain challenges to the review officer’s actions were raised by petitioner in his administrative appeal, as well as the facility review officer’s expressed predeterminations regarding petitioner’s guilt, we conclude that his serving as the superintendent’s designee to decide the appeal denied petitioner a fair and impartial administrative appeal. Matter of Williams v Panzarella, 2024 NY Slip Op 02118, Third Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, the prisoner’s right to due process of law is violated when the same officer who viewed the evidence and indicated the prisoner was guilty prior to the hearing also decided the prisoner’s administrative appeal.

April 18, 2024

Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates), Evidence

THE HEARSAY MISBEHAVIOR REPORT, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY INVESTIGATION, DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S GUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination, held that the hearsay misbehavior report which was not substantiated by an investigation was insufficient to support guilty finding:

“[H]earsay misbehavior reports can constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt so long as the evidence has sufficient relevance and probative value” … . Here, the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified at the hearing that no investigation into the allegation was conducted, explaining that the matter was reported toward the end of his shift and, therefore, there was no time for any investigation. Although the correction officer testified that the incarcerated individual who accused petitioner of making threats was “pretty convincing,” he offered no further basis or details as to why he found the report of the threat to be credible. Further, the incarcerated individual who made the allegations against petitioner, and who is identified in the misbehavior report, refused to testify at the hearing. As such, the only evidence to support the charge is the hearsay misbehavior report reciting nothing more than an unverified and uninvestigated accusation that petitioner threatened a fellow incarcerated individual. Under these circumstances, the misbehavior report does not constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt, and the determination must be annulled … . Matter of Alvarado v Annucci, 2024 NY Slip Op 01227, Third Dept 3-7-24

Practice Point: In inmate disciplinary hearings, a hearsay misbehavior report unsupported by any investigation does not constitute substantial evidence of guilt and will not support a guilty determination.

March 7, 2024

Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates), Evidence

THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER-INMATE’S RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF ONE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION AND EXPUNGEMENT OF ANOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled one misbehavior determination and expunged another because petitioner was denied his right to call witnesses:

… [The Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to call as a witness one of the correction officers who was present during the search of petitioner’s cell and endorsed the second misbehavior report (see 7 NYCRR 254.5). Given the passage of time, respondent does not seek a rehearing and requests that the determination in relation to the second misbehavior report be annulled.

… [T]he determination in relation to the first misbehavior report must also be annulled on the ground that petitioner was improperly denied his right to call a witness. The record reflects that petitioner, who denied the assault and claimed he was being set up, requested to call as a witness the alleged victim of the assault. Although there was a discussion at the hearing that the alleged victim would have to agree to testify, there is no indication that the alleged victim refused to testify or that the Hearing Officer made any effort to procure him as a witness. “[W]here the record does not reflect any reason for the witness’ refusal to testify, or that any inquiry was made of him [or her] as to why he [or she] refused or that the [H]earing [O]fficer communicated with the witness to verify his [or her] refusal to testify, there has been a denial of the [incarcerated individual’s] right to call witnesses as provided in the regulations” (… see 7 NYCRR 254.5). As we view the unexplained outright denial of a witness commensurate to the denial of petitioner’s constitutional right to call witnesses, expungement rather than remittal for a new hearing is the appropriate remedy … . Matter of Diaz v Annucci, 2023 NY Slip Op 06187, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: In prison misbehavior proceedings the erroneous or unexplained denial of an inmate’s right to call witnesses is reversible error.

November 30, 2023

Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates), Evidence

THE SUBSTANCE FOUND ON PETITIONER-INMATE’S PERSON WAS NOT TESTED OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED AS A DRUG; THE DRUG POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION, AS WELL AS THE SMUGGLING, DETERMINATIONS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, held the drug possession and distribution, as well as the smuggling, determinations should be annulled. A drug sniffing dog alerted to a substance on petitioner-inmate’s person but no testing or other identification of the substance was done:

At the prison disciplinary hearing, it was established that the suspected substance was not subjected to chemical testing, nor was there any evidence indicating that facility pharmacy or nursing staff inspected or visually identified the substance ,,, . Rather, the substance was visually identified as synthetic marihuana by the OSI K-9 officer. However, the regulation does not authorize an OSI officer to identify suspected substances as drugs. Similarly, testimony regarding the K-9 alerting to petitioner’s groin area did not suffice to comply with the regulation. While there was testimony that petitioner admitted that he possessed K2, this would, at most, establish a charge of possession of contraband, but not drug possession. Unlike a drug-related disciplinary charge, which requires compliance with the aforementioned identification procedures … , the prohibition on contraband merely depends on whether or not an item is authorized … . In light of the lack of compliance with regulatory procedures, the identity of the substance was not properly established …

As for the remaining charge of smuggling, this charge only requires that “any item” be smuggled in or out of the facility or from one area to another … , and does not require proof that the item was a drug or contraband. However, in finding petitioner guilty of this charge, the Hearing Officer expressly based his finding on the OSI K-9 officer’s conclusion that the substance was synthetic marihuana, and therefore must have been smuggled in from outside the facility. As noted above, this conclusion was flawed. Given that, and because there was no proof at the hearing that the substance in question was moved from one area to another, the finding as to this charge is also unsupported by substantial evidence and must be annulled. Matter of Then v Annucci, 2023 NY Slip Op 01037, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: The substance must be tested or otherwise identified by a professional as a drug before a drug possession or distribution determination against an inmate will be upheld.

February 23, 2023

Attorneys, Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates), Evidence, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER PETITIONER’S SUCCESSFUL FOIL REQUEST MERELY PARROTED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOR THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING FACTS; THEREFORE ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees associated with his ultimately successful FOIL request for the video of the incident which was the basis for the prison disciplinary proceedings. Attorney’s fees were denied on the ground that the respondent had a reasonable basis for denying the request for the video. However the respondent’s reasons for the denial merely parroted the relevant statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions, which was deemed insufficient:

In denying petitioner’s initial FOIL request and the subsequent administrative appeal, respondent merely quoted the language from the Public Officers Law. It gave no factual explanation or justification for its blanket denial to release the video footage. Although respondent provided an affirmation by its general counsel in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the affirmation once again merely quoted the statutory language and failed to explain or demonstrate how the footage was compiled for any law enforcement purposes. In a conclusory and speculative fashion, the affirmation referenced some investigations and adjudications, but failed to provide any factual details or explanation of same. Moreover, the affirmation failed to detail how the release of the video footage would affect or interfere with said investigations and adjudications. “[R]espondent[], by merely parroting the statutory language and otherwise failing to provide any adequate sort of harm risked by disclosure, ha[s] failed to meet [its] burden of proving that disclosure of the records would interfere with a pending law enforcement investigation” … .

The affirmation was equally deficient with regard to the safety exemption (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), in that it was neither particularized nor specific and failed to articulate an explanation as to how the release of the video footage could potentially endanger or impair the lives of correction officers or their families. Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07277, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In order to deny attorney’s fees after a successful FOIL request, the respondent must demonstrate a reasonable basis for the initial denial of the request. Merely parroting the statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions is not sufficient. The reasons must be fact-based.

December 22, 2022

Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates), Evidence

THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER DID NOT EXIST; DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, held that petitioner-inmate’s request for body camera footage was improperly denied:

We … find merit to petitioner’s contention that his request for body camera footage was improperly denied. Upon petitioner’s request for such footage at the hearing, the Hearing Officer responded that the correction officer’s body camera was turned off and, therefore, such footage did not exist. The record does not reflect the measures taken or the basis upon which the Hearing Officer concluded that the footage did not exist … . As such, petitioner’s request for the body camera footage was improperly denied and, under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is remittal for a new hearing … . Matter of Dorcinvil v Miller, 2022 NY Slip Op 06972, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-inmate requested body camera footage. The hearing officer denied the request, saying that the body camera had been turned off. Because the record did not reflect the steps taken by the hearing officer to defermine the footage didn’t exist, the determination was annulled and a new hearing was ordered.

December 8, 2022

PURSUANT TO THE “HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT),” AN INMATE WHO IS FACING SEGREGATED CONFINEMENT HAS A RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL AT THE DISPOSITIONAL PHASE OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS A DAY, WITH AT LEAST SEVEN HOURS OF OUT-OF-CELL TIME PER DAY, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) (THIRD DEPT).

THE HEARSAY MISBEHAVIOR REPORT, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY INVESTIGATION, DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S GUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER-INMATE’S RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF ONE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION AND EXPUNGEMENT OF ANOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

THE SUBSTANCE FOUND ON PETITIONER-INMATE’S PERSON WAS NOT TESTED OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED AS A DRUG; THE DRUG POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION, AS WELL AS THE SMUGGLING, DETERMINATIONS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER PETITIONER’S SUCCESSFUL FOIL REQUEST MERELY PARROTED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOR THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING FACTS; THEREFORE ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED (THIRD DEPT).

THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER DID NOT EXIST; DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.