You are here: / Disciplinary Hearings (Inmates)

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE EFFORT TO FIND WITNESSES, NEW HEARING REQUIRED.

The Third Department determined the hearing officer's failure to make an adequate attempt to locate the witnesses petitioner wanted to testify at the hearing required a new hearing:

At the hearing, petitioner requested the testimony of two fellow inmates. He did not know the inmates' names, but identified them by their nicknames and each of the cell blocks in which they were housed. Although the Hearing Officer made a phone call in an effort to locate one of these inmates, he made no effort to locate the other one, stating that petitioner did not provide him with enough information. Although petitioner's description of the requested witnesses was limited, in our view it was sufficiently detailed in that an attempt to locate them would not have been overly burdensome. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer's failure to make a reasonable effort to locate the inmates violated petitioner's right to call witnesses … . * * *

Given that the Hearing Officer articulated a good-faith reason for denying the witnesses and for his lack of effort in locating them, we find that petitioner's regulatory right to call witnesses was violated and not his constitutional right, and remittal for a new hearing is the proper remedy… . Matter of Allaway v Prack, 2016 NY Slip Op 03777, 3rd Dept 5-12-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE EFFORT TO FIND WITNESSES, NEW HEARING REQUIRED)

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT ADDRESS PETITIONER’S MENTAL HEALTH STATUS, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the disciplinary determination because the hearing officer made no effort to ascertain the testimony of a mental health clinician or therapist (outside the presence of petitioner) after the therapist called by the petitioner refused to testify:

 

…[P]etitioner’s mental health status was at issue and the Hearing Officer erred in not taking testimony from Office of Mental Health (hereinafter OMH) personnel regarding petitioner’s mental condition (see 7 NYCRR 254.6 [c]). Although a therapist from OMH that petitioner had requested refused to testify, the Hearing Officer was obligated to interview, out of petitioner’s presence, an OMH clinician “as may be available” concerning petitioner’s mental condition (7 NYCRR 254.6 [c] [3]…). Here, the Hearing Officer made no effort to ascertain the testimony of the therapist, or any other clinician at OMH, outside the presence of petitioner. Under the circumstances presented herein, the proper remedy for the Hearing Officer’s failure to satisfy his obligations under 7 NYCRR 254.6 (b) is a new hearing to address petitioner’s mental health status… . Matter of Howard v Prack, 2016 NY Slip Op 01538, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONER’S DEFENSE, DETERMINATION EXPUNGED)

DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO CORRECTIONAL-STAFF WITNESSES WAS ERROR, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the disciplinary determination because the hearing officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to call two witness who on the staff of the correctional facility and were trained in the identification of gang-related materials. Petitioner was charged possession of gang-related materials (photographs):

… [T]he Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to call two witnesses, who were correctional facility staff trained at identifying gang-related materials, to support his claim that the pictures did not depict any gang-related signs. As petitioner sought such testimony in order to refute a correction officer’s testimony that the gestures in the pictures depict gang signs, the Hearing Officer erred in finding that such testimony would be redundant. Given that the Hearing Officer put forth a good faith reason for the denial, this violated petitioner’s regulatory right to call witnesses and the proper remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing … . Matter of Williams v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 01535, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR STAFF WITNESSES REQUIRED ANNULMENT)

NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE WHY PETITIONER’S WITNESS WOULD NOT TESTIFY, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the determination because no effort was made to determine why petitioner's cellmate refused to testify at the hearing:

Petitioner contends, among other things, that he was improperly denied the right to have his cellmate, who allegedly overheard the correction officer threaten him, testify at the hearing. Petitioner requested the cellmate as a witness at the hearing. A correction officer approached the cellmate about testifying, but he apparently refused and would neither sign a refusal form nor state the reason for his refusal. It does not appear that the Hearing Officer communicated directly with the cellmate, but rather related this information to petitioner based upon the contents of the refusal form. Notably, the correction officer who completed the refusal form did not testify at the hearing.

This Court has acknowledged that “[a] deprivation of the inmate's right to present witnesses will be found when there has been no inquiry at all into the reason for the witness's refusal, without regard to whether the inmate previously agreed to testify” … . No such inquiry was made by the Hearing Officer here, and respondent has essentially conceded this much. Thus, while respondent maintains that this is a regulatory violation for which remittal is appropriate, we find that the circumstances presented give rise to a constitutional violation for which expungement is the proper remedy … . Matter of Tevault v Prack, 2016 NY Slip Op 01533, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (NO EFFORT MADE TO DETERMINED WHY PETITIONER'S WITNESS WOULD NOT TESTIFY, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)

HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONER’S CLAIM HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE A URINE SAMPLE, DETERMINATION EXPUNGED.

The Third Department expunged petitioner's disciplinary determination finding that the hearing officer improperly failed to consider medical evidence demonstrating petitioner was unable to provide a urine sample, and did not refuse to provide a sample:

[Petitioner] informed the Hearing Officer of his medical condition during the hearing and also provided medical documentation establishing that he had problems providing urine specimens in the past due to this condition. The Hearing Officer downplayed the significance of petitioner's medical condition and did not consider the medical documentation submitted even though it was sent prior to the conclusion of the hearing. The only evidence that the Hearing Officer considered was the misbehavior report and the request for urinalysis form. The request for urinalysis form indicated that petitioner did not willfully refuse to submit the specimen, but also stated that petitioner did not claim to be unable to submit the specimen in the presence of others. Given this inconsistency in the request for urinalysis form, the absence of any testimony concerning the administration of the urinalysis test or petitioner's medical condition and the Hearing Officer's failure to consider the medical documentation submitted, we find that the determination at issue is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Katsanos v Prack, 2016 NY Slip Op 01531, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONER'S DEFENSE, DETERMINATION EXPUNGED)

State’s Violation of Inmate Disciplinary-Hearing Due Process Rules Did Not Entitle Inmate to Summary Judgment In His Unlawful Confinement Action

The Fourth Department determined the 3rd Department’s finding that the state violated inmate disciplinary-hearing (due process) rules did not entitle the inmate to summary judgment in his unlawful confinement action. The 3rd Department annulled the inmate’s disciplinary determination based upon the state’s (due process) rule violations. The inmate then sued the state for unlawful confinement (apparently based upon the discipline imposed by the annulled determination). The Fourth Department found that the state’s rule violation merely removed the state’s absolute immunity, allowing the unlawful confinement action to go forward. However, the inmate must prove all the elements of unlawful confinement to prevail. A question of fact remained on the “privilege” element:

It is well settled that, where, as here, the actions of correction personnel have violated the due process safeguards contained in 7 NYCRR parts 252 through 254, those actions “[will] not receive immunity” … . Contrary to claimant’s contention, however, the absence of an immunity defense does not entitle claimant to partial summary judgment on liability on his unlawful confinement cause of action. As defendant correctly contends, the “removal of immunity . . . does not result in absolute liability to defendant because claimant is still required to prove the merits of his claim” … . “Where, as here, a prison inmate contends that he was wrongfully confined as a result of the flawed prison disciplinary proceeding, once the absolute immunity is removed by showing that the governing rules and regulations were not followed, he [or she] may recover damages if he [or she] is able to prove the traditional elements of the tort of [unlawful confinement]: (1) that the confinement was intentional; (2) that Claimant was conscious of the confinement; (3) that Claimant did not consent to the confinement; and (4) that the confinement was not otherwise privileged” … . “In other words, not every violation of the rules and regulations governing the imposition of prison discipline will result in liability on the part of the State; the rule violations merely remove the cloak of absolute immunity and make the State potentially liable, if liability would be imposed under common law tort principles” … .

Here, there is no dispute concerning the first three elements of the unlawful confinement cause of action, and the dispositive issue is whether claimant established as a matter of law that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. He did not. Moustakos v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08318, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

Failure to Assess Reliability of Confidential Informants Required Annulment and Expungement

The Third Department annulled and expunged the disciplinary determination because the hearing officer was not given enough information to adequately assess the confidential informants’ reliability:

“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 correction officer who investigated the incident and authored the misbehavior report testified that his information regarding petitioner’s involvement was gleaned from confidential informants. Other than noting that the confidential informants either had proven reliable in the past or disclosed detailed information about the incident, the correction officer did not testify with any further specificity or detail regarding the substance of the information that was provided in order for the Hearing Officer to independently assess the informants’ reliability or credibility. Given that the confidential information was instrumental in finding petitioner guilty of the charges, we find that substantial evidence does not support the determination and it, therefore, must be annulled… . Matter of Bridge v Annucci, 2015 NY Slip Op 07886, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

Identically Worded Misbehavior Reports Re: Different Inmates Were Inherently Incredible

The Second Department determined the inmate’s disciplinary determination must be annulled. Identically worded reports, concerning different inmates, signed by at least three different reporting officers, were “inherently incredible:”

The misbehavior report in this case was in the form of a first-person narrative, which provided a number of factual details about the reporting officer as well as the petitioner, including the direction from which the officer arrived at the scene, the exact location from which the officer first observed the disturbance, his personal observation of the petitioner “yelling and shouting,” the officer’s inability to hear the petitioner’s exact words, and the number of direct orders the officer gave the petitioner.

Ordinarily, such a particularized statement would be sufficiently relevant and probative to constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination … . Here, however, the petitioner successfully challenged the reliability of the report by showing that identically worded reports (except for the name and identifying information of the subject inmate) were signed by at least three different reporting officers.

While it is entirely plausible that several inmates, in the course of a disturbance, may have engaged in substantially similar misbehavior, we find it inherently incredible that several officers could have experienced the same particularized encounter with a number of different inmates. We further note that the hearing officer twice precluded the petitioner from asking the reporting officer whether he had actually written the unsworn report. Matter of Jackson v Annucci, 2015 NY Slip Op 07842, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

Absent a Clear Due Process Violation, the Correct Remedy for Failure to Explain Why a Witness Requested by the Inmate Did Not Testify (a Rule Violation) Is a New Hearing, Not Expungement

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that, under the facts, the correct remedy for the failure to call a witness requested by the inmate at a disciplinary hearing was a new hearing, not expungement. The court explained the due process requirements in this context, and the requirements of the Department of Correctional and Community Services’ (DOCCS’) rules, which go beyond the due process requirements. Under the rules, if a requested witness in not called, the inmate must be given a written explanation for the witness’ absence. Due process does not require the prison officials to explain why a witness did not appear. Here, because, under the facts, there was a clear rule violation, but no clear due process violation, a new hearing, not expungement, was appropriate:

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report for violating prison disciplinary rules while an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility. At the Tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded not guilty to all charges and requested several witnesses be called, including another inmate, T. However, T refused to testify, stating on his inmate witness refusal form that “I was never at Upstate ever. I came here from Attica!” Petitioner asked the hearing officer to re-contact T because his response indicated that he was confused about the location of the incident, which had occurred at Attica. The hearing officer agreed to have T re-interviewed. However, when the hearing reconvened T did not testify and the hearing officer did not state whether T had been re-contacted, and, if so, what he had said regarding the request to testify. The hearing officer, thereafter, found petitioner guilty of all charges, and respondent, the then Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), administratively affirmed this disposition … . * * *

The United States Supreme Court in Wolff v McDonell , 418 US 539 (1974) held that inmates retain rights under the Federal Due Process Clause and are entitled to the minimum requirements for procedural due process, although those rights are subject to restrictions due to the nature of incarceration (id. at 556-58). Those minimal due process requirements include an inmate’s right in a disciplinary proceeding to call witnesses in the inmate’s defense, so long as “permitting [the inmate] to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals” (id. at 566). While noting its usefulness, the Supreme Court did not require that prison officials “state [their] reason for refusing to call a witness, whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases” (id. ).

The right to call witnesses is codified in DOCCS regulations, which also provide additional protections above and beyond those minimum requirements for procedural due process recognized by the United States Supreme Court (see 7 NYCRR 254.5). For example, and as relevant to this appeal, section 254.5(a) states that an inmate may call a witness if the 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.” Matter of Texeira v Fischer, 2015 NY Slip Op 07783, CtApp 10-27-15

 

Attempt to Violate a Prison Rule Is Sufficient to Find a Violation/Intent Is Irrelevant

The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that the petitioner-inmate had violated the prison rule prohibiting the possession of loose stamps in the prison library. Petitioner argued he did not violate the rule because he was found in possession of the loose stamps outside of the library and he did not intend to violate the rule . However, the Court of Appeals determined an attempt to violate a prison rule is sufficient (petitioner acknowledged he was on his way to the library when the stamps were found) and the petitioner’s intent was not an element of the offense:

Prison rules state explicitly that inmates who attempt “to violate institutional rules of conduct . . . [are] punishable to the same degree as violators of such rules . . . . [and] may be cited for attempts . . . whether or not the text of an actual rule contains such term[]” (7 NYCRR 270.3 [b]). Petitioner testified during the disciplinary hearing that he was carrying the loose stamps while on his way to the law library. Thus, by his own admission, he is guilty of an attempt to violate the provision, and as a consequence Rule 113.22. Furthermore, whether petitioner was aware that he was in violation of a restriction on loose stamps is irrelevant because Rule 113.22 applies regardless of the inmate’s intent. Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 2015 NY Slip Op 07696, CtApp 10-22-15

 

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