Matter of Joseph v. Polizzi

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed a CPLR article 78 challenge to a prison disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of multiple violations, including possessing marihuana and a weapon and engaging in violent conduct. The court held that substantial evidence supported the determination, the chain of custody was adequately established, and the petitioner was not improperly removed from the hearing or denied relevant witnesses. The court confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding.

Holdings

1. The misbehavior reports, related documentation, correction-officer testimony, and complete video recording provided substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt.
2. The chain of custody was sufficiently established where the chain-of-custody forms, misbehavior report, and related documentary evidence demonstrated a secure and unbroken chain.
3. Petitioner's removal from the hearing was proper because he continued interrupting and arguing with the Hearing Officer after repeated warnings that disruptive conduct could result in removal.
4. Petitioner failed to preserve his claim that he was denied the right to call witnesses because he did not identify the witnesses he wanted called.
5. The Hearing Officer properly denied as irrelevant testimony from the deputy director of security concerning the results of another inmate's disciplinary hearing.
6. The record did not establish Hearing Officer bias; the determination of guilt resulted from the evidence presented rather than alleged bias.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the determination finding petitioner guilty of the charged prison disciplinary violations.
2. Whether the chain of custody for the contraband was sufficiently established despite notations on the forms not being personally written by each correction officer.
3. Whether petitioner was improperly removed from the disciplinary hearing because of disruptive conduct.
4. Whether petitioner was denied the right to call witnesses and whether that claim was preserved.
5. Whether the Hearing Officer properly excluded testimony from a deputy director of security concerning another inmate's disciplinary hearing.
6. Whether the Hearing Officer was biased.

Disposition

dismissed