Summary
The New York Appellate Division, Third Department reviewed a CPLR article 78 challenge to a prison disciplinary determination. The court annulled the finding that Leonard Holland disobeyed a direct order and directed expungement of that charge, while confirming the findings on the remaining charges.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported the findings that petitioner engaged in sexual conduct and violated visiting room procedures.
- Whether the record supported the finding that petitioner disobeyed a direct order.
- Whether the Hearing Officer's alleged bias required annulment of the disciplinary determination.
- Whether the matter had to be remitted for reassessment of the penalty after one charge was annulled.
Holdings
- The record did not support the charge of disobeying a direct order, so that portion of the disciplinary determination had to be annulled.
- The misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officers who observed the incident constituted substantial evidence supporting the findings of guilt on the charges of engaging in sexual conduct and violating visiting room procedures.
- Petitioner's denial presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve and did not require annulment of the findings.
- The alleged bias did not warrant annulment because the record showed that the determination resulted from the evidence presented rather than bias.
- Remand for reassessment of the penalty was unnecessary because petitioner had already served the penalty and no loss of good time had been imposed.
Key quotations
“As petitioner has already served the penalty and there was no loss of good time imposed, the matter need not be remitted for a reassessment of the penalty” ([*1])
“the record establishes that the determination resulted from the evidence presented and not from any alleged bias” ([*2])
Factual background
A correction officer observed petitioner being touched in the groin area by his visitor, leading to charges of engaging in sexual conduct, violating visiting room procedures, and disobeying a direct order. After a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all three charges. Petitioner denied the conduct and also asserted that the Hearing Officer was biased.
Procedural history
Petitioner was found guilty after a tier III disciplinary hearing of engaging in sexual conduct, violating visiting room procedures, and disobeying a direct order. The determination, as modified with respect to the penalty, was affirmed on administrative appeal. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, respondent conceded that the disobeying-a-direct-order charge was unsupported by the record; the court annulled that portion of the determination and confirmed the remainder.
Remand instructions
No remand for penalty reassessment was required. The Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision was directed to expunge all references to the disobeying-a-direct-order charge from petitioner's institutional record.