Dorcinvil v. Miller

211 A.D.3d 1205

179 N.Y.S.3d 800

In the Matter of Jacques DORCINVIL, Petitioner,

v.Christopher MILLER, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

533954

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: November 10, 2022

Decided and Entered: December 8, 2022

Jacques Dorcinvil, Elmira, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Sean P. Mix of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Fisher and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review two determinations of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with violating various prison disciplinary rules. According to the first misbehavior report, on November 24, 2020, petitioner obstructed the visibility into his cell with a sheet and initially refused a direct order to remove it. The second misbehavior report alleged that, on January 5, 2021, petitioner refused to comply with a correction officer's direct order to stop playing his television in a loud, improper manner and to again remove a sheet that was obstructing the view into his cell. Following separate tier II disciplinary hearings, petitioner was found guilty in a November 28, 2020 determination of obstructing visibility into his cell and refusing a direct order in connection with the first misbehavior report, and, in a January 7, 2021 determination, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order, obstructing visibility into his cell and creating a disturbance pursuant to the second misbehavior report. The determination in connection with the first misbehavior report was affirmed upon administrative review.¹ Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging both determinations.

With respect to the first misbehavior report, the testimony at the hearing together with the contents of the report provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Stevens v. Oscar, 199 A.D.3d 1149, 1149, 154 N.Y.S.3d 281 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of McDonald v. Annucci, 159 A.D.3d 1216, 1217, 69 N.Y.S.3d 841 [3d Dept. 2018] ). Petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for grievances filed against the correction officer who authored the report created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Kalwasinski v. Venettozzi, 152 A.D.3d 853, 853, 54 N.Y.S.3d 888 [3d Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Harriott v. Koenigsmann, 149 A.D.3d 1440, 1441, 53 N.Y.S.3d 401 [3d Dept. 2017] ). We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that he was improperly denied the right to present witnesses. The fact that the Hearing Officer limited petitioner's questioning of the witnesses to issues relevant to the incident charged in the misbehavior report, and precluded testimony regarding the substance of his grievances against the correction officer, did not deprive petitioner of his right to present witnesses (see Matter of Fero v. Prack, 110 A.D.3d 1128, 1129, 972 N.Y.S.2d 115 [3d Dept. 2013] ; Matter of Washington v. Napoli, 61 A.D.3d 1243, 1243, 877 N.Y.S.2d 752 [3d Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 704, 2009 WL 2779392 [2009] ). We also reject petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer abused his discretion in removing him from the hearing after petitioner continually disregarded the Hearing Officer's repeated warnings to refrain from asking questions unrelated to the misbehavior report, which was disruptive to the hearing procedures (see Matter of Canty v. Fischer, 92 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 939 N.Y.S.2d 142 [3d Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 802, 2012 WL 1537981 [2012] ; Matter of Canty v. Esgrow, 83 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 921 N.Y.S.2d 410 [3d Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 705, 2011 WL 2566523 [2011], cert denied 565 U.S. 1121, 132 S.Ct. 1020, 181 L.Ed.2d 753 [2012] ).

We do, however, find merit to petitioner's contention that his request for body camera footage was improperly denied. Upon petitioner's request for such footage at the hearing, the Hearing Officer responded that the correction officer's body camera was turned off and, therefore, such footage did not exist. The record does not reflect the measures taken or the basis upon which the Hearing Officer concluded that the footage did not exist (see Matter of Espinal v. Annucci, 175 A.D.3d 1696, 1697, 108 N.Y.S.3d 540 [3d Dept. 2019] ; cf. Matter of Caraway v. Annucci, 190 A.D.3d 1198, 1199, 141 N.Y.S.3d 166 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Lashway v. Keyser, 178 A.D.3d 1224, 1225, 115 N.Y.S.3d 166 [3d Dept. 2019] ). As such, petitioner's request for the body camera footage was improperly denied and, under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is remittal for a new hearing (see Matter of Espinal v. Annucci, 175 A.D.3d at 1697, 108 N.Y.S.3d 540 ).

To the extent that petitioner challenges the January 7, 2021 determination with respect to the second misbehavior report, the...