You are here: / Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)

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))

,

RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the disciplinary determination must be annulled and expunged because the hearing officer did not independently assess the credibility of an informant:

​

“A disciplinary determination may be based upon hearsay confidential information provided that it is sufficiently detailed and probative for the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of the informant’s reliability”… . Here, the Hearing Officer, without informing petitioner, interviewed the correction officer who investigated the incident and authored the misbehavior report about the information obtained from the confidential informant. Although the correction officer attested to the informant’s past reliability, the substance of the information gleaned from the informant was too vague and insufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to independently assess the reliability or credibility of the informant … . Because the confidential information was instrumental in finding petitioner guilty of the charges, the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of Fields v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 06697, Third Dept 9-28-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF HER DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST THAT A WITNESS TESTIFY, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because the hearing officer failed to provide him with written notice of her denial of the inmate’s request that a witness testify:

​

At the start of the hearing, petitioner indicated three times that he wanted to call inmate X as a witness, and also informed the Hearing Officer that he wished to call six inmates who were housed in his dorm. The Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing to interview the inmates requested and, when the hearing resumed, she informed petitioner that the six inmates housed in his dorm had refused to testify, briefly mentioning the various reasons given and that they had signed refusal forms. The Hearing Officer, however, did not mention whether she had also spoken to inmate X and, if so, what he had said regarding his prior agreement to testify. No other reference was made to inmate X at the hearing and the hearing thereafter concluded without inmate X’s testimony.

Despite the fact that the hearing transcript is devoid of any indication of the Hearing Officer’s efforts to obtain inmate X’s testimony, the record contains a refusal form completed by the Hearing Officer indicating that she personally interviewed inmate X during the pendency of the hearing and that he refused to testify because he did not “want to be involved.” This record evidence establishes the Hearing Officer’s personal efforts to secure inmate X’s testimony and ascertain a sufficient reason for his refusal … . It is equally apparent that the Hearing Officer effectively made a determination to deny petitioner’s request to call this witness for this reason. However, we find that her failure to provide any written notice to petitioner concerning her effective denial of his request amounts to a regulatory violation requiring the matter to be remitted for a new hearing … . Matter of Blades v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 06581, Third Dept 9-21-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF HER DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST THAT A WITNESS TESTIFY, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department annulled and expunged the misbehavior determination because the record did not reflect the petitioner’s knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to be present at the hearing:

“[A]n inmate has a fundamental right to be present at his or her disciplinary hearing and, in order for an inmate to make a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of that right, he or she must be informed of that right and of the consequences of failing to appear at the hearing” … . Here, while there was testimony at the continuation of the hearing that the correction officers assigned to transport petitioner advised him that the hearing would continue in his absence, a videotape of the interaction between petitioner and the officers that resulted in his refusal to attend the hearing reveals no such advisement. Notably, the correction officer did not elaborate on the reason for petitioner’s refusal, and the Hearing Officer did not inquire … . Although the record also contains a written form, signed by one of the correction officers assigned to transport petitioner to the hearing, attesting to the fact that petitioner was aware of the consequences of his refusal, petitioner did not sign the form and there is no indication on the form or anywhere else in the record as to the steps taken to either “ascertain the legitimacy of petitioner’s refusal or to inform him of . . . the consequences of his failure to [attend]” …  to assert that petitioner forfeited his right to be present is unavailing because the hearing was not nearing completion at the time of the refusal. In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that petitioner knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily relinquished his right to attend the hearing … . Matter of Micolo v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 05893, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED 3RD DEPT)

RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined a raised fist was sufficient to support the “creating a disturbance” charge, but not the “interference with an employee” charge:

… [A]s to the charge of interfering with an employee, while the evidence establishes that prison staff were alarmed by petitioner’s gesture resulting in additional staff reporting to the mess hall, we agree with petitioner that these facts, standing alone, do not constitute substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner “physically or verbally obstruct[ed] or interfere[d] with an employee,” and, therefore, the determination should be annulled to that extent… . While the normal duties of the prison staff were presumably interrupted or redirected when they responded to the incident in the mess hall, this, in our view, is not the type of conduct that the at-issue rule was designed to prevent … . Matter of Taylor v Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 05903, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEPT)

ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA WAS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRABAND-POSSESSION CHARGE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the contraband-possession charge was supported by sufficient evidence. The petitioner had a small package of a leafy green substance which tested negative for marijuana. The supervisor who seized the substance, after the test had been done, alleged it was synthetic marijuana. Because all of the substance was used up in the marijuana test, no further tests were possible. The dissent argued the proof was insufficient because the supervisor did not describe the nature of his experience which led to his conclusion the substance was contraband:

As for the … charge of possessing contraband, “an inmate shall not possess any item unless it has been specifically authorized” … . Given petitioner’s concessions and the supervisor’s representations in the misbehavior report that his identification was based upon his prior training and experience, we find that the item contained in the tobacco pouch was adequately identified as synthetic marihuana and, therefore, the determination that it was unauthorized contraband is supported by substantial evidence … . * * ​

FROM THE DISSENT:

The supervisor who identified the substance as synthetic marihuana offered no details regarding his training or experience, nor any explanation of how they qualified him to make such an identification. Indeed, he did not testify, so the Hearing Officer was left to rely on a vague and conclusory statement included in a misbehavior report and repeated in a memorandum. Moreover, the quantity of the substance recovered apparently allowed for only one drug test, and the record indicates that the substance was tested to discover whether it was marihuana. If the supervisor actually had the ability to identify synthetic marihuana and had, in fact, so identified the substance taken from petitioner when the supervisor viewed it before the testing was conducted, there is no explanation as to why he would thereafter have his subordinate use the entirety of the substance in a test for marihuana, which would not indicate a positive or a negative result for synthetic marihuana … . Thus, the record contains no evidence that the supervisor was qualified to identify synthetic marihuana, but does contain evidence that leads to an inference that he had, initially, incorrectly identified the substance as marihuana. The Hearing Officer should not have relied on the supervisor’s second guess as to the nature of the substance, supported by nothing other than his own vague and self-serving statement regarding his training and experience. Matter of King v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05899, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (CONTRABAND, ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA WAS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRABAND-POSSESSION CHARGE 3RD DEPT)/CONTRABAND (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA WAS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRABAND-POSSESSION CHARGE 3RD DEPT)

,

COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision and the Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter CORC) were not necessary parties to this review of a disciplinary proceeding and other grievances:

“CPLR 1001 (a) states that an individual or entity is a necessary party to litigation ‘if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action’ or if the entity [or individual] ‘might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action [or proceeding]'” … . Here, respondent maintains that the Commissioner and CORC are necessary parties to this action because complete relief cannot be accorded in their absence. Although respondent correctly notes that the Commissioner is the individual who renders the final determination in tier III disciplinary proceedings … and CORC is the entity having the final decision on whether to grant or deny an inmate grievance … , the failure to name either the Commissioner or CORC as a party has never before inequitably affected them or prevented this Court from according complete relief in similar proceedings… . Moreover, in light of the fact that respondent, the Commissioner and CORC are integrally related inasmuch as they each fall under the umbrella of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, we find that the Commissioner and CORC are at no risk of prejudice and would not be “inequitably affected by a judgment” if they were not joined in this proceeding … . Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Commissioner and CORC are not necessary parties, and the failure to name them in proceedings such as this can be ignored. Matter of Green v Uhler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05491, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)/NECESSARY PARTIES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT)

WITNESS TESTIMONY TAKEN OUTSIDE THE INMATE’S PRESENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

The Third Department determined the determination should be annulled and expunged because a witness’s testimony was taken outside the inmate’s presence without his permission:

​

In disciplinary hearings, an inmate has a conditional right to call witnesses on his or her behalf and “[a]ny witness shall be allowed to testify at the hearing in the presence of the inmate unless the hearing officer determines that so doing will jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals” … . The regulation promulgated by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision requires that, prior to excluding a witness from testifying at the hearing, the Hearing Officer must “determine” that his or her presence will threaten institutional safety or correctional goals and inform the inmate of such reason … . Here, although petitioner conceded at the hearing that one inmate who was in the special housing unit could testify outside his presence, the Hearing Officer failed to set forth, either on the record or on the witness interview sheet, any reason for the other requested witness to testify outside petitioner’s presence. Furthermore, the record does not disclose, with regard to this witness, any reason that the presence of the inmate would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals … . As there was no adherence to the Department’s regulation, the determination must be annulled … . Furthermore, although petitioner was asked what questions he would pose to the requested witness and was permitted to hear the recorded testimony of that inmate, he repeatedly objected to the testimony of the inmate being taken outside his presence. As such, petitioner did not waive his right to receive a reason for the exclusion of that witness … . Matter of Kalwasinski v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05139, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (WITNESS TESTIMONY TAKEN OUTSIDE THE INMATE’S PRESENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT)

FAILURE TO PRESERVE AND PHOTOGRAPH THE CONTRABAND REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE CONTRABAND AND SMUGGLING DETERMINATIONS.

The Fourth Department annulled the contraband and smuggling determinations because the respondent did not preserve and photograph the items:

We … agree with petitioner that the judgment must be modified with respect to the first misbehavior report by granting the petition in part because respondent failed to preserve and photograph the alleged contraband in violation of Department of Corrections & Community Supervision Directive No. 4910A … , and the error cannot be deemed harmless on this record. Matter of Adams v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2017 NY Slip Op 04728, 4th Dept 6-9-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (FAILURE TO PRESERVE AND PHOTOGRAPH THE CONTRABAND REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE CONTRABAND AND SMUGGLING DETERMINATIONS)

HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO CALL A WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, found the hearing officer’s refusal without explanation to call a witness to the confrontation between petitioner and guards to be a constitutional violation:

​

“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”… . This report indicated that, without provocation, petitioner punched the officer conducting the frisk in the eye. Petitioner maintained that he did not assault either officer, that the officer conducting the frisk was the aggressor, grabbing petitioner’s genitals during the frisk and punching him, and that both officers attacked him in retaliation for him filing a grievance against a fellow officer. The requested witness submitted a memorandum to his superior on the day of the incident stating that he observed the frisk, that petitioner turned off the wall and that a struggle ensued with the correction officer. According to the memorandum, the officer called for a response team and, by the time the team arrived, both petitioner and the officer involved in the altercation were inside of petitioner’s cell and out of his sight. Following the initial request for this witness at the hearing, the Hearing Officer stated that he would address the request later. Petitioner clearly requested testimony from this witness a second time and the Hearing Officer did not respond. The Hearing Officer subsequently closed the hearing without calling the witness and without providing a reason for not calling him.  Matter of Reyes v Keyser, 2017 NY Slip Op 04007, 3rd Dept 5-18-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO CALL A WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT)

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