You are here: / Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)

PETITIONER WAS NEVER INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the determination and expunged the inmate’s record because he was never informed of his right to call witnesses:

While petitioner did not, at the hearing, request that the inmate be called to testify or demand that there be a further inquiry into his refusal… , the record does not reflect that petitioner was ever advised of his constitutional or regulatory right to call witnesses at the hearing … . The constitutional right to call witnesses at a prison disciplinary proceeding “is not waivable in the absence of [an inmate] being informed of its existence”… . As such, the determination must be annulled. Given that petitioner’s due process rights were violated and that this situation is comparable to the outright denial of the constitutional right to call witnesses, expungement is the proper remedy … . Matter of Ballard v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 04625, Third Dept 6-21-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER WAS NEVER INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/EXPUNGEMENT (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), PETITIONER WAS NEVER INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

PETITIONER-INMATE, WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CLASS ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY, DID NOT VIOLATE PRISON RULES PROHIBITING GANG ACTIVITY BY DISCUSSING THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE BLOODS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, held that petitioner-inmate, who was teaching a course on African-American history, did not violate prison rules prohibiting gang activity by describing the the operating rules of the Black Panther Party or by commenting on the Bloods:

While discussing the history of the Black Panther Party and its apparent code of ethics, known as the “Eight Points of Attention,” petitioner stated that the eighth point was “[i]f we ever have to take captives, do not ill treat them.” Later in the class while critiquing another group, known as “Damu” or the Bloods gang, he stated, in relevant part, that “they could be the biggest army across this country if they were to organize themselves.” * * *

A review of the videotape of the class clearly reveals that petitioner made the statements at issue while discussing African-American organizations from an historical, cultural and political perspective and that such statements were consistent with the approved subject matter of the class. At no point did petitioner advocate that the class participants, none of whom were revealed to be gang members, engage in violent behavior by actually taking hostages or that they organize by banding together to become members of the Bloods gang. Rather, the videotape discloses that petitioner engaged in a detailed discussion of various historical events during the 1½-hour class and recited facts regarding these organizations that he thought were relevant in an effort to engage the class participants. Viewing the statements in the proper context, the evidence does not establish that petitioner “engage[d] in any violent conduct or conduct involving the threat of violence either individually or in a group” … or that he “l[ed], organize[d], participate[d], or urge[d] other inmates to participate, in a work-stoppage, sit-in, lock-in, or other actions which may be detrimental to the order of the facility” … . Likewise, the evidence does not demonstrate that petitioner “engage[d] in or encourage[d] others in gang activities or meetings” … . Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 03413, Third Dept 5-10-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER-INMATE, WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CLASS ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY, DID NOT VIOLATE PRISON RULES PROHIBITING GANG ACTIVITY BY DISCUSSING THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE BLOODS (THIRD DEPT))/GANGS (INMATES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER-INMATE, WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CLASS ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY, DID NOT VIOLATE PRISON RULES PROHIBITING GANG ACTIVITY BY DISCUSSING THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE BLOODS (THIRD DEPT))

INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, held that the inmate-petitioner had the right to call a prison officer as a witness to ascertain the basis for the officer’s knowledge that petitioner possessed a weapon. The petitioner alleged the weapon was placed in the petitioner’s cell by someone else:

A prison inmate facing a disciplinary hearing is not entitled to the same level of due process as a criminal defendant  … , but there are minimum standards for disciplinary hearings. The rules of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision expressly provide that inmates have a conditional right to call witnesses: “The inmate may call witnesses on his behalf provided their testimony is material, is not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. If permission to call a witness is denied, the hearing officer shall give the inmate a written statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals presented” (7 NYCRR 253.5[a]). Here, the petitioner did not dispute that the item in question was found in his cell, but he contended that the item must have been placed by someone else, and he asked that the superior officer who provided the information upon which a sergeant authorized the search be called as a witness. The hearing officer incorrectly ruled that the superior officer’s testimony was not needed simply because, as the sergeant testified, the superior officer had provided reliable information in the past. The hearing officer overlooked the fact that, absent any countervailing consideration, such as a specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals, the petitioner was entitled to have the superior officer asked about the basis of his knowledge that contraband could be found in the petitioner’s cell … .

Since the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision failed to adhere to its own rule in the conduct of the hearing … , the determination must be annulled, all references to the determination must be expunged from the petitioner’s institutional record, and the matter remitted to the respondent for further proceedings, if the respondent be so advised … . Matter of Cumberland v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 03357, Second Dept 5-9-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), (INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT))

,

DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled the misbehavior (smuggling) determination. Petitioner was accused of smuggling a letter. But part of petitioner’s duties was sending out religious information (Nation of Islam). The letter was religious in nature. The charges did not allege the violation of any particular guideline or policy which was violated:

The charges against the petitioner here were not supported by substantial evidence. Although the inmate misbehavior report charged failure to comply with and follow guidelines and instructions given by staff regarding facility correspondence procedures… , it did not specify any particular guideline or instruction with which the petitioner had failed to comply. Further, the correction officer who authored the report could not identify the particular correspondence policy he believed the petitioner had violated. Accordingly, the finding that the petitioner violated rule 180.11 must be annulled … .

In addition, the hearing evidence established that the petitioner, in his capacity as inmate facilitator for the prison’s Nation of Islam office, had duties including sending religious materials to other inmates from the Nation of Islam office, and neither the misbehavior report nor the testifying correction officer identified any regulation prohibiting the petitioner, in that capacity, from including the subject letter with the other materials. Accordingly, the finding that the petitioner violated rule 114.10 must also be annulled … . Matter of Smith v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 02330, Second Dept 4-4-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/RELIGION (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/ISLAM  (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))

EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD ACCESS TO THE AREA WHERE THE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER’S POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, found that the evidence petitioner possessed contraband was insufficient. The fact that petitioner had access to the area where the contraband was found was not enough. A lock pick had been found in a door mechanism:

The correction officer who served as the facility’s locksmith testified that the lock pick did not belong to him and that, because the lock pick was observed to be dirty, the lock pick had probably been in the tracking of the cell door for a while prior to its discovery. The Hearing Officer accepted as true petitioner’s testimony that he had initially complained that the cell door would not close and that the door had been opened and closed numerous times without a problem on the day in question. We find significant petitioner’s testimony that he alerted facility staff to the malfunctioning door and the locksmith’s testimony suggesting that the lock pick had most likely been hidden in the tracking of the cell door for an extended period of time and prior to petitioner’s occupation of the cell … . In our view, these circumstances do not permit a reasonable inference that petitioner possessed the contraband simply because he might have had access to the area where the contraband was found and that it, to some extent, was under his control … . Matter of Perez v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 01521, Third Dept 3-8-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD ACCESS TO THE AREA WHERE THE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER’S POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND (THIRD DEPT))

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department annulled the determination and ordered a new disciplinary hearing because petitioner was denied his right to call witnesses:

​

“An inmate has a right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing so long as the testimony is not immaterial or redundant and poses no threat to institutional safety or correctional goals” … . Respondent correctly concedes that the Hearing Officer violated petitioner’s right to call witnesses as provided in the regulations … . Inasmuch as a good faith reason for denying the witnesses appears in the record, only petitioner’s regulatory right, not his constitutional right, to call those witnesses was violated, and thus the proper remedy is a new hearing … . Matter of Adams v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00695, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHY AN INMATE WITNESS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO TESTIFY LATER REFUSED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because the hearing officer did not make an adequate inquiry into the reasons an inmate witness who had previously agreed to testify later refused:

​

Generally, we have held that, in situations where an inmate witness who had previously agreed to testify but later refuses without giving a reason, “it is incumbent upon the Hearing Officer to conduct a personal inquiry unless a genuine reason for the refusal is apparent from the record and the Hearing Officer makes a sufficient inquiry into the facts surrounding the refusal to ascertain its authenticity” … . While the personal inquiry by a hearing officer may be limited in situations where, as here, the requested witness is housed in a different correctional facility, the record does not reflect that the Hearing Officer made any attempt to personally interview the witness to confirm the reason for the refusal, to obtain a written refusal form from the witness containing such a reason or to call the correction officer who interviewed the witness to testify at the hearing. In our view, petitioner’s regulatory right to call this witness was not adequately protected and that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of assault, refusing to obey a direct order and possessing a weapon, as charged in the first misbehavior report, must be annulled and remitted for a new hearing on these charges … . Matter of Radcliffe v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00505, Third Department 1-25-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHY AN INMATE WITNESS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO TESTIFY LATER REFUSED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))

FINDING THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON FOUND IN A CUBE SHARED WITH OTHER INMATES NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the finding that petitioner possessed a weapon which was found in a cube shared with other inmates was not supported by substantial evidence:

​

Petitioner denied any knowledge of the weapon, and the record reflects that he shared the cube with other inmates. The cube was separated by a divider into two living areas, with petitioner and another inmate sharing one side and at least one other inmate housed on the other side. The correction officer who authorized the search, and was present when the weapon was found, testified that the weapon was discovered under the center of the divider. According to the officer, all the inmates housed in the cube had access to that area because the divider was movable and it could be easily lifted. The correction officer who discovered the weapon testified that it was located closer to the side of the divider where petitioner and another inmate were housed and that it would have been more difficult for inmates housed on the other side of the divider to place the weapon there. There is no evidence in the record to support a finding that petitioner possessed the weapon and, in our view, the evidence presented does not eliminate either the inmates housed on the other side of the divider or the inmate who shared petitioner’s side from being responsible for possessing it. Further, under the circumstances presented here, “we do not believe that a reasonable inference can be made that petitioner possessed this contraband simply because he had access to the area where the contraband was found and that it, to some extent, was under his control” … . Matter of Carter v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00501, Third Dept 1-25-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (FINDING THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON FOUND IN A CUBE SHARED WITH OTHER INMATES NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))

VIOLATION OF A DIRECTIVE BY THE PRISON DID NOT WARRANT ANNULMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, found that petitioner’s disciplinary determination should no have been annulled based upon a violation of a directive by the prison. Petitioner was found guilty of possessing a weapon and tampering with property:

​

… [T]he violation of former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2) did not entitle petitioner to the annulment of the determination of guilt. Former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2) provided that “[t]he search of a [s]pecial [h]ousing [u]nit cell shall be conducted with the inmate removed from the cell for the duration of the search. The inmate shall be placed in a vacant cell and not allowed to carry anything. If a vacant cell is not available, the inmate is to be taken to the far end of the tier and held for the duration of the search.” It is uncontested that, here, petitioner was placed in a recreation area — and not in a vacant cell or at the far end of the tier — while his cell was searched.

Although the placement of petitioner in the recreation area violated former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2), we reject petitioner’s contention that the proper remedy is annulment. Not all administrative violations invalidate agency actions, and the proper remedy for an administrative violation must take into account the purpose of the regulation that was violated… . Here, a plain reading of former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2) establishes that the provision is intended to promote institutional safety rather than to protect an inmate’s interests in regard to the search of his or her cell. Accordingly, we perceive no reason that petitioner would automatically be entitled to suppression of any evidence recovered from a search due to a violation of a directive that was not intended to protect his rights in regard to that search. Moreover, petitioner does not allege that his placement in the recreation area somehow prejudiced him … . Matter of Tenney v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 08794, Third Dept 12-14-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) VIOLATION OF A DIRECTIVE BY THE PRISON DID NOT WARRANT ANNULMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT)

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because the witness he requested could have provided relevant information. The request should not have been denied by the hearing officer:

 

… [P]etitioner was improperly denied a witness. The Hearing Officer denied petitioner’s request to question a correction officer who searched the empty cell on the day prior to that upon which petitioner was alleged to have thrown the bottle, and petitioner claimed that the officer could confirm that the bottle was already in the empty cell. Contrary to the Hearing Officer’s conclusion, the testimony of this correction officer regarding whether the bottle was already in the empty cell would not have been irrelevant. Matter of Castillo v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 07922, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy