Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: LATIQUE JOHNSON, PETITIONER, v. ALBERT PRACK, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL HOUSING/INMATE DISCIPLINARY, RESPONDENT. LATIQUE JOHNSON, PETITIONER PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Thomas G. Leone, A.J.], entered March 6, 2014) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously annulled on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to respondent for a new hearing.
Generally, an inmate has a conditional right to call witnesses at a prison disciplinary hearing when doing so does not threaten institutional safety or correctional goals (see Matter of Santiago v. Fischer, 76 AD3d 1127, 1127; Matter of Alvarez v. Goord, 30 AD3d 118, 119). Here, as respondent correctly concedes, the Hearing Officer violated petitioner's right to call witnesses as provided in the regulations (see 7 NYCRR 254.5; see generally Matter of Barnes v LeFevre, 69 N.Y.2d 649, 650). Although petitioner seeks expungement, he is not entitled to that relief at this juncture. Where, as here, “a good faith reason for the denial appears on the record, this amounts to a regulatory violation” rather than a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights, “requiring that the matter be remitted for a new hearing” (Matter of Morris–Hill v. Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978; see Santiago, 76 AD3d at 1127). We therefore annul the determination and remit the matter to respondent for a new hearing.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: TP 14–00469
Decided: November 14, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)