IN RE: Alexander KATES (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, following a tier II disciplinary hearing, that he violated incarcerated individual rules 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i] [refusing direct order]) and 109.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [10] [iii] [movement regulation violation]).

We reject petitioner's contentions that the Hearing Officer improperly denied his request to call certain witnesses to testify at the hearing. “ ‘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’ ” (Matter of Burroughs v. Corey, 235 A.D.3d 1251, 1252, 227 N.Y.S.3d 838 [4th Dept. 2025]; see Matter of Ballard v. Kickbush, 165 A.D.3d 1587, 1589, 85 N.Y.S.3d 645 [4th Dept. 2018], appeal dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1182, 95 N.Y.S.3d 133, 119 N.E.3d 773 [2019]). Here, the proposed testimony of the various witnesses was irrelevant (see Matter of Jackson v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1288, 1288-1289, 994 N.Y.S.2d 755 [4th Dept. 2014]).

Contrary to petitioner's further contention, the misbehavior report, together with petitioner's statement that his actions were accurately described in the misbehavior report, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination that he violated incarcerated individual rules 106.10 and 109.12 (see Matter of Griswold v. Goord, 39 A.D.3d 908, 909, 835 N.Y.S.2d 460 [3d Dept. 2007]; Matter of Melvin v. Smith, 143 A.D.2d 525, 525, 533 N.Y.S.2d 158 [4th Dept. 1988]).