You are here: / Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)
,

THE EXISTENCE OF A VIDEOTAPE OF THE ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR-INCIDENT, REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new hearing, determined the petitioner’s request for a videotape of the alleged misbehavior-incident should have been looked into by the hearing officer. The hearing officer asserted no videotape existed, but a document indicated a videotape had been preserved:

Petitioner requested the videotape from his employee assistant and at the hearing. Although the Hearing Officer informed petitioner that no videotape existed, the record contains a facility Video Preservation Form indicating that a videotape, taken in the area of the incident on the date in question, was preserved. Inasmuch as the record does not indicate that the Hearing Officer undertook any measures to ascertain whether the videotape existed, we find that petitioner’s request was improperly denied … . Matter of Espinal v Annucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 06670, Third Dept 9-19-19

 

PETITIONER WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT WHETHER HE COULD REQUEST WITNESSES, AND, IF THEY REFUSED TO TESTIFY, WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A REFUSAL FORM OR EXPLANATION, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because he was misinformed about whether he could request the presence of two witnesses who had refused to testify, and, if they again refused, whether petitioner was entitled to a refusal form or explanation:

The record reflects that, prior to the disciplinary hearing, petitioner asked his employee assistant to secure the testimony of three inmate witnesses — Franklin, Figueroa and Forrest. The assistance form indicates that although Forrest agreed to testify, the remaining two inmates refused. At the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer advised petitioner that, because Franklin and Figueroa had been requested as witnesses prior to the start of the hearing, neither a witness refusal form nor an explanation for their refusal to testify was required. Specifically, the Hearing Officer explained that “when it comes to assistance . . . they only ask you yes or no, there are no witness forms required.” The Hearing Officer further explained, “If you ask for [an] additional witness that is not on this list and that person says no[,] I don’t want to testify[,] then a form would have to be done in that instance” (emphasis added). In response, petitioner indicated that he wished to call additional witnesses, but did not again request Franklin or Figueroa.

Respondent concedes that the Hearing Officer’s explanation incorrectly suggested that petitioner could request additional witnesses but not the two who had already refused. This error was significant as petitioner could still have requested Franklin and Figueroa and, if they again refused, a refusal form or explanation would have been required … . Matter of Getfield v Annucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 04523, Thrid Dept 6-6-19

 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A VIDEOTAPE OF THE UNDERLYING INCIDENT WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED, EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new hearing, determined petitioner’s request for a videotape of the underlying incident was improperly denied by the hearing officer:

Although petitioner apparently did not request his assistant to obtain the videotape, he made such request during the course of the hearing. The Hearing Officer denied the request and informed petitioner that because he did not ask his assistant to obtain it, it was unpreserved. Based upon this omission, the Hearing Officer considered the videotape to be “unavailable.” However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the videotape was, in fact, unavailable or that the Hearing Officer undertook any measures to ascertain if such videotape existed. In view of this, we conclude that petitioner’s request was improperly denied … . Matter of Davison v Annucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 01474, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled the disciplinary determination because the allegation that petitioner did not leave the yard when directed to do so was not supported by substantial evidence:

“A prison disciplinary determination must be supported by substantial evidence, meaning that in order to sustain a determination of guilt, a court must find that the disciplinary authorities have offered such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . A written misbehavior report made by an employee who observed an incident or ascertained the facts can constitute substantial evidence of an inmate’s misconduct so long as it is sufficiently relevant and probative … . Here, the record did not contain substantial evidence supporting the charges against the petitioner inasmuch as it failed to establish that the petitioner was one of the inmates who participated in the demonstration and refused to leave the yard when ordered to do so … . Matter of Johnson v Griffin, 2019 NY Slip Op 00123, Second Dept 1-9-19

PETITIONER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE UNAUTHORIZED MEDICATION WAS FOUND IN HIS CELL, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that the determination petitioner was guilty of possessing unauthorized medication must be annulled because petitioner may not have been afforded his right to be present when the pill was discovered:

… [T]he part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing unauthorized medication must be annulled as the record reflects that petitioner may not have been afforded his conditional right to observe that portion of the cell search that resulted in the pill being discovered. As such, the determination must be annulled to that extent and all references to the charge of possessing unauthorized medication must be expunged from his institutional record … . Matter of Torres v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 08595, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, found that the misbehavior determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner was charged with attempting to mail gang related information. But there was no evidence connecting petitioner to the relevant documents:

… [T]he documentary evidence attached to the misbehavior report and submitted to this Court for in camera review consisted solely of three typewritten pages, which did not have any features or content that could identify petitioner as the author or sender, and did not include the envelope in which the pages were allegedly discovered … . The testimony given by the investigating correction officer, together with the statements that he made in the misbehavior report, established only that the three typewritten pages were forwarded to him from the mail room as mail that petitioner had attempted to send. The investigating correction officer did not testify to having any personal knowledge that petitioner was the sender of those pages. A mail room supervisor testified that, although she was aware that petitioner was the subject of a mail watch at one time, she could not recall the actual incident, and she did not offer any testimony that linked petitioner to the pages at issue… . Further, petitioner did not admit ownership of the documents or otherwise connect himself to them … . To the contrary, petitioner maintained his innocence throughout the administrative proceeding and asserted that he was being retaliated against for having lodged grievances against the mail room staff. In the absence of evidence connecting petitioner to the three typewritten pages, the underlying determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Telesford v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 07397, Third Dept 11-1-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))

INMATE’S ‘THREAT’ TO BRING A LAWSUIT WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE RULE VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, annulling the “threats” charge, determined that the “threat” to file a lawsuit was not a proper basis for the charge:

… [R]espondent's determination of guilt on the threats charge under inmate rule 102.10 must be annulled. Although respondent correctly notes that “an inmate need not threaten violence in order to be found guilty of [making threats under rule 102.10]” … , a statement cannot be a “threat” within the meaning of inmate rule 102.10 unless, at the very minimum, it [*2]conveys an intent to do something illegal, improper, or otherwise prohibited … . Here, petitioner did not convey an intent to do anything illegal, improper, or otherwise prohibited. To the contrary, petitioner merely conveyed his intent to exercise his constitutional right to access the courts … , and he cannot be penalized for “threatening” to do something, i.e., file a lawsuit, that he has every legal right to do. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “[t]o punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort, . . . and for an agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person's reliance on his legal rights is patently unconstitutional' ” (Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 US 357, 363 [1978], reh denied435 US 918 [1978], quoting Chaffin v Stynchcombe, 412 US 17, 32 n 20 [1973]). Moreover, respondent's interpretation of the word “threat” in this context would effectively nullify the protections afforded by Correction Law § 138 (4), which bars an inmate from being “disciplined for making written or oral statements, demands, or requests involving a change of institutional conditions, policies, rules, regulations, or laws affecting an institution.” Matter of Gourdine v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 06391, Fourth Dept 9-29-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INMATE'S 'THREAT' TO BRING A LAWSUIT WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE RULE VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT))

PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL, WAS NOT GUILTY OF LEWD CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination, held that the petitioner did not engage in lewd conduct merely by urinating in his cell:

… [T]he Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of engaging in lewd conduct… . The female correction officer testified that, while petitioner continued to urinate when she passed his cell, he made no gestures and did not expose his genitals to her … . Matter of Burroughs v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 06168, Third Dept 9-19-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL, WAS NOT GUILTY OF LEWD CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT))/LEWD CONDUCT (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL, WAS NOT GUILTY OF LEWD CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT))

,

Petitioner Denied Right to Assistance of Counsel—Dismissal and Expungement Ordered

The Third Department determined the inmate was denied his right to “seek and receive the assistance of attorneys” requiring dismissal and expungement:

Petitioner here sought to discuss the disciplinary proceedings with retained counsel, but prison officials prohibited personal and telephonic contact between the two prior to the disciplinary hearing.  To be sure, inmates do not “have a right to either retained or appointed counsel in disciplinary proceedings” … .  They remain, however, entitled to “a reasonable opportunity to seek and receive the assistance of attorneys” with regard to issues of concern to them … .  Petitioner was deprived of such an opportunity, which amounted to unjustifiable interference with his right to “marshal the facts and prepare a defense” under the circumstances of this case and requires dismissal of the remaining charge and expungement from his institutional record … .  Matter of Jeckel v NYS Dept of Corr, 515391, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

ATTORNEYS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL

,

HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEP

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination and expunging it, determined the hearsay upon which the determination was based was not demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable:

“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” … . The only witness called to testify at the hearing was the lieutenant who oversaw the investigation. The lieutenant relied upon information provided by other officers, who reported receiving information from unspecified informants that petitioner was involved in this fight. During his confidential and hearing testimony, the lieutenant recounted that the officers informed him that they had received information from informants, whom they had used in the past and found reliable, that petitioner had engaged in this fight. The lieutenant deemed the reports to be “consistent” and “credible,” but provided no details of their accounts. Moreover, the lieutenant had not interviewed any of the informants and did not know if any of them had actually witnessed the fight. The questioning of the lieutenant about the officers’ and informants’ accounts was cursory, rather than “thorough and specific” as required to provide the Hearing Officer with a basis to gauge the informants’ “knowledge and reliability” … .

While the lieutenant relied upon a to/from memorandum from the sergeant who apparently interviewed some of the informants, that memorandum contains no details regarding the basis for their knowledge or any specificity about their accounts, and does not assert that they had witnessed the fight or any information regarding their past reliability. Under these circumstances, the record is devoid of any basis upon which to conclude that the informants ever provided “detailed and specific” accounts, or that the Hearing Officer had information from which to “gauge the basis for the informant[s’] knowledge of the [fight] and [their] reliability” … . Matter of Maisonett v Venettozzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 05257, Third Dept 7-12-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES)  (HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/HEARSAY (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES)  (HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

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