You are here: / Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)
,

Hearsay Deemed Insufficient to Support Determination

The Third Department annulled the disciplinary determination because the hearsay information upon which it was based was deemed insufficient:

“While hearsay evidence in the form of confidential information may provide substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt, the information must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment to determine its reliability and credibility” … . Notably, where the Hearing Officer obtains such information through the testimony of a correction officer who has interviewed a confidential informant, the questioning must be thorough and specific, to allow an adequate basis to gauge the informant’s knowledge and reliability … . The Hearing Officer may not base his or her conclusion solely upon the correction officer’s assessment of the confidential informant’s truthfulness … .

Here, the captain who prepared the misbehavior report stated that an inmate he spoke with identified petitioner as the individual who told other inmates in the mosque not to participate in the ILC election process. He stated that another inmate, who he apparently did not interview, gave a note to another correction official that similarly implicated petitioner. The correction official who received the note testified that he received several confidential letters from inmates indicating that petitioner was a major participant in the scheme to force inmates to boycott the ILC election process. He stated that he personally interviewed three inmates and, without revealing their identities to the Hearing Officer, related the information that they disclosed to him.

A number of deficiencies with the in camera interview lead us to conclude that it did not provide an adequate basis for the Hearing Officer to independently assess the credibility and reliability of the confidential information. First, the captain did not provide any testimony to establish whether the inmate he interviewed had previously provided credible information to him or other officials, and he admitted that he did not even know the inmate who gave the note to the other correction official. Similarly, the correction official who interviewed the three unidentified inmates did not articulate the bases for finding their statements to be believable. Significantly, none of the letters or notes written by inmates allegedly implicating petitioner were admitted into evidence … . Further, the statements of the inmates interviewed by the two officials lacked adequate specificity to establish petitioner’s status as a leader of the boycott, or his act of threatening violence … . Given these deficiencies, and as the confidential information was instrumental to the finding of guilt, we conclude that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of Muller v Fischer, 2014 NY Slip Op 06024, 3rd Dept 9-4-14

 

Petitioner Not Given Adequate Employee Assistance—Determination Annulled—New Hearing Ordered

The Third Department determined the petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because a report he requested was never provided to him, and no explanation for the failure to provide the report was made:

…[W]e agree with petitioner’s contention that he was denied adequate employee assistance. Specifically, the record reflects that petitioner’s assistance form requested the “injury report,” but the record does not reveal that petitioner was either provided with the report or informed that it did not exist. While the Hearing Officer noted petitioner’s request at the hearing and advised petitioner that he would check into this, no further mention of this issue was made. Under these circumstances, we cannot say on this record that such omission did not prejudice petitioner’s defense, and the determination must be annulled … . Matter of Rupnarine v Prack, 2014 NY Slip Op 04093, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Inadequate Effort to Provide Requested Documents and Witnesses Required Annulment of the Misbehavior Determination

The Fourth Department annulled the determination against an inmate because of inadequate assistance.  The court found that the inmate was improperly denied requested documents and witnesses:

…[W]e note that the Hearing Officer indicated that the signatures of the hall captains were illegible and thus unidentifiable, even by those officers in the block to whom the Hearing Officer had spoken, but nevertheless agreed to “try” to comply with petitioner’s request to call those witnesses. The record does not reflect any efforts made by the Hearing Officer to do so.

We further agree with petitioner that he was denied meaningful employee assistance and was prejudiced by the inadequate assistance he received. Thus, at a minimum, petitioner would have been entitled to a new hearing in any event … . Petitioner objected to the assistance provided to him, complaining that the assistant did not bring him copies of the documents being used against him and that the assistant did not want to help him. “When the inmate is unable to provide names of potential witnesses, but provides sufficient information to allow the employee [assistant] to locate the witnesses ‘without great difficulty[,’] failure to make any effort to do so constitutes a violation of the meaningful assistance requirement” … . The record fails to set forth what efforts, if any, the employee assistant made to ascertain the names of the correction officers who signed the disbursement forms and what measures, if any, the assistant took to secure their presence at the hearing. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that “reasonable efforts were made to locate petitioner’s witnesses” … .

Furthermore, petitioner was denied the right to call a witness,i.e., the other inmate, as provided in the regulations … . “The hearsay report of a correction officer that a witness refuses to testify unaccompanied by any reason from the witness proffered to the [H]earing [O]fficer for such refusal is not a sufficient basis upon which an inmate’s conditional right to call witnesses can be summarily denied” … . Matter of Elder v Fischer, 90, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

“Mail Watch” Should Not Have Been Authorized/Determination Based on Contents of Inmate’s Mail Annulled

The Third Department annulled at determination which resulted from the interception of the inmate’s mail, finding that the “mail watch” authorization was invalid:

A superintendent of a correctional facility may authorize a mail watch only where “there is a reason to believe that the provisions of any department directive, rule or regulation have been violated, that any applicable state or[f]ederal law has been violated, or that such mail threatens the safety, security, or good order of a facility or the safety or well being of any person” (7 NYCRR 720.3 [e] [1]). Where a mail watch has been authorized, such authorization must “set forth the specific facts forming the basis for the action” (7 NYCRR 720.3 [e] [1]). Here, the Superintendent’s authorization failed to set forth any facts upon which its issuance was based, stating only that it was based upon a request of a deputy superintendent “to investigate activity that may jeopardize the safety and security of the facility.” Inasmuch as the authorization was not in compliance with the applicable regulation, it was invalid and the resulting mail watch was not properly authorized … . Mena v Fischer, 516758, 3rd Dept 3-6-14

 

,

Hearsay Evidence from Confidential Informant Insufficiently Detailed to Allow Independent Assessment of Credibility and Reliability

The Third Department annulled certain charges against the petitioner because the hearsay evidence was inadequate:

Hearsay in the form of confidential information may provide substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt when it is sufficiently detailed and probative to permit the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of its credibility and reliability … .Here, however, the correction officer’s description of the sources’ statements did not indicate that they had been threatened or had personal knowledge of any threats, nor did the officer provide details regarding the basis of their knowledge or whether they personally witnessed any conduct or statements by petitioner.  The testimony was insufficiently detailed and specific to enable the Hearing Officer to independently assess the credibility or reliability of the confidential information, and it appears that he impermissibly relied on the correction officer’s assessment that the sources were truthful… .  Matter of Rosa v Fischer, 515981, 3rd Dept 12-5-13

 

,

Inmate’s FOIL Request for Prison Directive Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined the inmate’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for a Department of Corrections directive should have been granted:

…”[T]here is a presumption that government documents are available for inspection, and the burden rests on the agency resisting disclosure to demonstrate that they are exempt under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) by articulating a specific and particularized justification” … .  Although the basis of the denial of petitioner’s request was that the disclosure may endanger the life or safety of a person (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), we fail to see how the disclosure of DOCCS Directive No. 4004, which pertains to the specifications for creating unusual incident reports, poses a danger to lives or to anyone’s safety … . Accordingly, the directive must be disclosed. Matter of Flores v Fischer, 516131, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

Effects of Refusal to Allow Inmate to Call Witness Explained

The Third Department, in determining that a new hearing, not expungement, was the appropriate remedy, explained the ramifications of a hearing officer’s refusal of an inmate’s request to call witnesses:

“[W]hile ‘[a] hearing officer’s actual outright denial of a witness without a stated good-faith reason, or lack of any effort to obtain a requested witness’s testimony, constitutes a clear constitutional violation [requiring expungement,] [m]ost other situations constitute regulatory violations [requiring a new hearing]'” … .  Here, … the denial of the witnesses constituted a regulatory violation, and the proper remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing… . Matter of Griffin, 515749, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

,

Hearsay Not Assessed for Reliability—Determination Annulled

The Third Department annulled a determination that was based upon hearsay which had not been assessed for reliability:

While hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt, it must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to independently assess its reliability and credibility … .   The basis for the charges here were written and oral statements by inmates implicating petitioner as the thief.  There is no indication, however, that those statements were independently reviewed by the Hearing Officer, who based his determination solely upon the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction lieutenant who authored it.  Matter of Carrasquillo…, 515970, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

Insufficient Justification for Removing Inmate from Hearing

The Third Department reversed a determination of guilt because the petitioner was removed from the hearing without sufficient justification:

“An inmate has a fundamental right to be present during a prison disciplinary hearing unless he or she is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals” … .  Petitioner here was first warned that he could be removed from the hearing after he attempted to suggest questions for a witness he had requested who claimed to have been threatened and refused to testify.  The Hearing Officer then invited petitioner to explain his defense, namely, that the author of the misbehavior report had set him up after they had sexual contact.  Petitioner referred to the officer by her first name, prompting the Hearing Officer to direct him to refrain from doing so.  Petitioner then attempted to explain – despite the Hearing Officer’s repeated interruptions – that the officer “told me to call her” by her first name and that such was “the only way” he could accurately describe what had occurred.  Instead of allowing petitioner to explain further or present his account of events, however, the Hearing Officer abruptly cut petitioner off and removed him from the hearing.  Even if petitioner’s conduct could legitimately be viewed as indecorous or disrespectful, “our review of the record reveals no evidence that [it] rose to the level of disruption that justified his exclusion from the proceedings”… . Matter of Watson v Fischer, 515197, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

Hearing Conducted in Absence of Inmate Okay Due to Inmate’s Assaultive and Menacing Conduct

The Third Department affirmed a guilty determination even though the hearing was conducted in the inmate’s absence.  The inmate had a history of assaults and menacing conduct:

It is well settled that an inmate has a fundamental right to be present at a disciplinary hearing, unless “he or she refuses to attend, or is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals” (7 NYCRR 254.6 [a] [2]…). When an inmate is denied the right to be present at a hearing, there must be a factual basis in the record supporting the Hearing Officer’s decision … .  Here, the Hearing Officer set forth on the record his reasons for excluding petitioner from the hearing, including petitioner’s menacing conduct at a hearing earlier that same day, which he personally witnessed,  as well as petitioner’s multiple assaults on staff during the past several months.  Based upon these incidents, the Hearing Officer could reasonably conclude that petitioner’s presence at the hearing would jeopardize institutional safety and correctional goals.  Matter of Barnes v Prack, 514889, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy