IN RE: Jonathan SANTOS (2026)

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 a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, then an incarcerated individual, was directed to place his hands on the wall for a pat frisk prior to being interviewed by a correction sergeant.  Although petitioner complied, he became agitated after learning that the interview related to reports that the dogs he and other incarcerated individuals trained in the facility had been abused.  Petitioner turned and stepped toward the correction sergeant with clenched fists, at which point the sergeant pepper sprayed him and ordered him to lie on the floor with his hands behind his back.  He did so, and was later charged in a misbehavior report with violating several prison disciplinary rules.  Following a tier III disciplinary hearing at which petitioner was represented by counsel, petitioner was found guilty of engaging in violent conduct, assaulting staff ¹ and interfering with an employee.  Upon administrative review, the determination was modified to the extent of dismissing the employee interference charge.  This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

First, although public records reflect that petitioner was released from custody during the pendency of this proceeding, it “is not moot because petitioner is entitled to have an institutional record free from improperly obtained findings of disciplinary rule violations” (Matter of Bornstorff v. Bezio, 73 A.D.3d 1397, 1397, 903 N.Y.S.2d 168 [3d Dept. 2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Matter of Ryhal v. Annucci, 208 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 174 N.Y.S.3d 480 [3d Dept. 2022]).  We therefore turn to the merits.

We confirm.  Substantial evidence, in the form of the misbehavior report, the related documentation submitted for in camera review and the hearing testimony, supports the finding of guilt (see Matter of Santos v. Annucci, 209 A.D.3d 1084, 1085, 175 N.Y.S.3d 616 [3d Dept. 2022];  Matter of Estrada v. Annucci, 199 A.D.3d 1145, 1145–1146, 156 N.Y.S.3d 576 [3d Dept. 2021]).  Petitioner's differing account of what occurred, including his assertion that he was pepper sprayed without provocation, presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Coggins v. Rodriguez, 236 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 231 N.Y.S.3d 242 [3d Dept. 2025];  Matter of Estrada v. Annucci, 199 A.D.3d at 1146, 156 N.Y.S.3d 576).

Petitioner's procedural arguments are not persuasive.  He first suggests that the denial of his Freedom of Information Law (see Public Officers Law art 6) request for unspecified documents prevented him from challenging errors in the determination, but we are precluded from considering that issue given his failure to provide a copy of the request or the denial thereof (see Matter of Jones v. Fischer, 110 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 974 N.Y.S.2d 162 n [3d Dept. 2013], appeal dismissed 23 N.Y.3d 955, 988 N.Y.S.2d 124, 11 N.E.3d 198 [2014];  Matter of Watson v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 108 A.D.3d 817, 818, 971 N.Y.S.2d 578 n [3d Dept. 2013], lv dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 914, 975 N.Y.S.2d 733, 998 N.E.2d 397 [2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 902, 2014 WL 1776887 [2014]).  The record that is before us reflects “that he was not denied the right to any relevant requested documentary evidence or witness testimony” (Matter of Pitts v. Jordan, 230 A.D.3d 1457, 1459, 218 N.Y.S.3d 496 [3d Dept. 2024];  see Matter of Alsima v. Bondarenka, 238 A.D.3d 1421, 1422, 236 N.Y.S.3d 351 [3d Dept. 2025]).  In particular, the Hearing Officer properly read the preliminary unusual incident and use of force reports into the record (see Matter of Alsima v. Bondarenka, 238 A.D.3d at 1422, 236 N.Y.S.3d 351;  Matter of Pitts v. Jordan, 230 A.D.3d at 1459, 218 N.Y.S.3d 496).  The Hearing Officer also properly denied, as irrelevant, petitioner's request to call character witnesses (see Matter of Moise v. Annucci, 168 A.D.3d 1337, 1338, 92 N.Y.S.3d 736 [3d Dept. 2019];  Matter of Bonds v. Annucci, 166 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 89 N.Y.S.3d 730 [3d Dept. 2018]).  Further, nothing “in the record establishes that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Moise v. Annucci, 168 A.D.3d at 1339, 92 N.Y.S.3d 736).  To the limited extent that petitioner's remaining arguments are properly before us, they have been considered and rejected.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The assault charge was brought under 7 NYCRR 270.2(B)(1)(ii), which prohibits incarcerated individuals from assaulting or “attempt[ing] to inflict bodily harm upon any staff member.”  The conduct forming this charge was based upon an attempted assault.

Clark, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, McShan and Corcoran, JJ., concur.