Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously confirmed a determination finding that Alexander Kates violated incarcerated individual rules concerning refusal to obey a direct order and movement regulation violations. The court held that the Hearing Officer properly denied requests for irrelevant witness testimony and that the misbehavior report, together with Kates's statement, constituted substantial evidence supporting the determination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner's request to call certain witnesses at the tier II disciplinary hearing.
- Whether the misbehavior report and petitioner's statement constituted substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated rules 106.10 and 109.12.
Holdings
- An incarcerated individual has a conditional right to call witnesses, but is not entitled to call witnesses whose testimony is immaterial or redundant. The proposed testimony here was irrelevant, so the Hearing Officer properly denied the requests.
- The misbehavior report, together with petitioner's statement that his actions were accurately described in the report, constituted substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated incarcerated-individual rules 106.10 and 109.12.
Key quotations
“"Although an [incarcerated individual] has a 'conditional right' to call witnesses . . . , an [incarcerated individual] is not entitled to call witnesses whose testimony is immaterial or redundant"” (*1)
Factual background
Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found to have violated incarcerated-individual rule 106.10, prohibiting refusal to obey a direct order, and rule 109.12, concerning movement-regulation violations. Petitioner challenged the determination, arguing that the Hearing Officer improperly denied his requests to call certain witnesses and that the evidence was insufficient. The record included a misbehavior report and petitioner's statement that his actions were accurately described in that report.
Procedural history
Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination that he violated incarcerated-individual rules 106.10 and 109.12. The Supreme Court, Wyoming County, transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition without costs.