Fuquan F. et al, Petitioners, v. III (2026)

On August 18, 2025, a Notice of Motion for Contempt was filed by the above-named Petitioners alleging that Respondent is in contempt of a prior Order of this Court dated June 18, 2024; and

Responsive pleadings, an administrative record and further submissions having been received by this Court.

NOW, it is hereby found that Petitioners failed to meet their burden and, as such, the motion is denied in all respects  ¹ .

Findings of Fact

The instant application was filed by Notice of Motion and requests that this Court find Respondents in contempt. According to the petition, in the underlying proceeding, "[t]he Court further ordered DOCCS to review all previously issued sanctions and vacate those 'without required specific written findings of fact and conclusions' "² . Petitioner further alleges that "[e]vidence reveals that DOCCS continues to adhere to the very practices this Court rejected and has failed to vacate and annul sanctions that required written findings of fact with respect to the k(ii) analysis" and that DOCCS "repeatedly upheld unlawful sanctions" and "continues to issue new sanctions in violation of HALT"³ .

Petitioner alleges in the petition that "[i]n response to the Court's June 18, 2024, order, DOCCS began reviewing disciplinary confinement sanctions issued pursuant to the policy" and "represented to Plaintiffs-Petitioners that it had reviewed thousands of disciplinary determinations . . . From this review, DOCCS stated that only a couple hundred written determinations failed to meet the required k(ii) findings". Counsel outlines information shared by DOCCS during a September 12, 2024 "meet and confer" and a follow up "meet and confer" on January 22, 2025. At these meetings, DOCCS reported the outcome of its review of the thousands of prior determinations. DOCCS divided the prior cases into two categories depending on whether active SHU sanctions were in place resulting from incidents that occurred prior to September 14, 2023. Out of the first category of determinations, eighteen sanctions were upheld and one hundred and forty-four were modified or vacated. Out of the second category of determinations, one-thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine were upheld. In five hundred and forty-five matters, sanctions were either modified or vacated  ⁴ .

In follow up to these "meet and confer" session's DOCCS provided counsel for Petitioner with seventy-eight "handed-picked packets" for their review. Petitioner alleges that "in many cases . . . DOCCS upheld disciplinary sanctions that did not meet the second of the k(ii) criteria . . . [and] instead merely regurgitated the rule violation with which the individual was charged, recited the facts of the disciplinary incident, or otherwise failed to demonstrate how the incident met these factors"⁵ . Petitioner alleges that "DOCCS does not engage with Respondent-Petitioners on compliance issues" and alleges that they have repeatedly requested additional "meet and confer" sessions to further discuss issues and DOCCS has failed to schedule further meetings.

Counsel for Petitioners have included an analysis of a number of individual cases selected from the packets shared by DOCCS. They allege that in many of these cases, the Hearing Officer continued to misapply the provisions of HALT and imposed extended confinement without making the required findings. Petitioners argue that since the Court's Decision and Order, numerous additional inmates have been subject to penalties that do not comply with HALT, that "evidence" shows continued violations of the k(ii) criteria and establish "serious compliance issues". They further argue that "there is little reason to believe that these ongoing violations will cease without this Court's oversight"  ⁶ .

In opposition to the motion, Respondent argues that DOCCS has taken reasonable steps to address this Court's Decision and Order. They allege that "[i]mmediately following the June 18, 2024, Decision and Order, DOCCS began extensive efforts to both rectify prior violations of Section k(ii), and to modify its hearing practices and procedures to ensure future compliance. Those efforts continue to this day. Further, despite no obligation to do so, DOCCS regularly engaged with Petitioners' counsel to explain its compliance efforts, to provide documentation of its compliance work, and to address Petitioners' counsel's questions and concerns"⁷ .

Counsel argues that "Respondent is not violating any aspect of the Court's Decision and Order, much less a 'clear and unequivocal' prohibition of the Court" and that "DOCCS undisputed actions show compliance with all aspects of the Court's Order . . . DOCCS wholly revised its practices, procedures and training to address the first aspect of the Court's order" and "the significant changes . . . resolves the second aspect of the Court's order by ensuring ongoing compliance with hearings post-dating the Court's order". Counsel continues that while "Petitioners may disagree that the factual findings at certain class members' disciplinary hearings are sufficient to justify extended confinement, contempt is not the proper remedy" and that "[t]he parties differing judgments about what meets this threshold, or how detailed the written factual descriptions must be, do not show contempt  ⁸ .

Counsel for Respondent has submitted an affirmation from A.R., DOCCS Director of the Special Housing and Incarcerated Individual Disciplinary Programs. The affirmation outlines the litany of steps taken by DOCCS to comply with this Court's Order including, but not limited to, memoranda with instructions, numerous revisions to the justification forms and the development of new training materials for Hearing Officers that were presented at mandatory trainings for all Hearing Officers.

According to Mr. R.,

The training materials focused on the two-pronged analysis required by HALT, discussed the Court's decision, and reiterated that a sanction of extended segregated confinement may not be issued unless there is a written determination which explains how each prong of the two-pronged analysis has been met based upon the particular facts of the misconduct at issue. The training unambiguously states that a sanction of segregated confinement cannot be issued solely because an offense has been designated as a Tier III violation  ⁹ .

Mr. R. also outlines the process undertaken by DOCCS to identify and re-assess those determinations that were rendered prior to this Court's Decision and Order. Mr. R. reports that DOCCS reviewed over four thousand disciplinary packets. "In reviewing the subject hearing packets, DOCCS assessed whether hearing officers made the written findings of fact and conclusions required under HALT, utilizing a list of objective aggravating and mitigating factors, including but not limited to degree of injury, evidence of premeditation, whether the incident occurred in a vulnerable or volatile area of the facility, or whether multiple incarcerated individuals were involved"¹⁰ .

Mr. R. confirms the statistics quoted by Petitioners regarding the amendment and vacatur rates for those individuals whose hearings and penalties were reviewed. Mr. R. reports that training continues regarding the issues addressed by this Court and that DOCCS continues to review current determinations that are rendered to monitor compliance. According to Mr. R., "Hearing Officers are following the guidance and training that has been provided since the Court's decision, and, as such, we are seeing fewer cases that do not meet HALT's technical requirements".

The Court has also received a reply from Petitioners wherein they restate most of the arguments initially presented in the submissions in support of the motion and continue to argue that "[t]here is no doubt as to what this Court's order required DOCCS to do". They also continue to make the conclusory assertion that "to comply with the Court's order, DOCCS had to remedy its violations and undertake the analysis required under the HALT act" they describe this Court's Decision and Order as a global "unequivocal command" regarding DOCCS processes. Finally, although not controlling with-regard-to this Court's determination on the motion, Petitioners dispute Respondents' claim that they have not shown prejudice and outline precisely how they claim their clients' rights have been "defeated, impaired, impeded and prejudiced".

Administrative Record

Respondents have submitted an administrative record including, but not limited to, copies of numerous internal memoranda to Hearing Officers. These memoranda outline and explain this Court's findings and provide information regarding revisions to policies and procedures and emphasize the need to comply with the k(ii) requirements. The record also includes the aforementioned revised "confinement justification forms", copies of presentation material prepared for the "meet and confer" sessions with counsel for Petitioners and presentation material from training sessions that were conducted in follow-up to this Court's ruling. Notably, the training material specifically, and in detail, address the Court's findings and determinations set forth in the Decision and Order. The record also includes records from approximately sixteen hearings that have been conducted since the Court's Decision and Order.

Applicable Law

The HALT act was enacted by the New York State Legislature in 2021. As set forth in Corrections Law § 137, the HALT act imposes specific limits and regulations regarding the placement of individuals in segregated and other specific forms of disciplinary confinement. The HALT Act defines segregated confinement as a type of confinement in which the incarcerated individual is offered less than seven hours out-of-cell programming or other out-of-cell activities daily  ¹¹ . HALT limits segregated confinement to not more than fifteen consecutive days or twenty total days in any sixty-day period  ¹² .

Specifically, CL § 137[6][k] provides in relevant part that

[t]he department may place a person in segregated confinement beyond the limits of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph or on a residential rehabilitation unit only if, pursuant to an evidentiary hearing, it determines by written decision that the person committed one of the following acts and if the commissioner or his or her designee determines in writing based on specific objective criteria the acts were so heinous or destructive that placement of the individual in general population housing creates a significant risk of imminent serious physical injury to staff or other incarcerated persons, and creates an unreasonable risk to the security of the facility.

In the instant action, after granting class action status to a-number-of incarcerated individuals who alleged ongoing and systematic violations of the ACT, this Court found that DOCCS was following a policy known as "k (2) Confinement Policy" that was not authorized by statute and which essentially provided that any Tier III violation was "inherently" heinous or destructive. This Court found that such a policy is null and void as arbitrary and capricious and not in compliance with the requirements of the HALT Act.

This Court found that based upon said "policy", Hearing Officers were routinely failing to comply with CL § 137(6)(k)(ii) and failing to conduct fact-specific inquiries and make specific findings-of-fact in any hearings requesting an extended segregated confinement. This Court further found that any and all determinations made to place members of the certified class in extended segregated confinement, a residential rehabilitation unit, or any other unit requiring compliance with CL § 137(6)(k)(ii), made pursuant to the k(2) Confinement Policy, or determinations made without required specific written findings of fact and conclusions, were declared as null and void  ¹³ .

Civil Contempt

"To sustain a finding of either civil or criminal contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order, it is necessary to establish that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect . . . It must also appear with reasonable certainty that the order has been disobeyed . . . Of course, the party charged must have had knowledge of the court's order" (Dept. of Environ. Protection v. Dept. of Environ. Conservation, 70 NY2d 233 (1987). The decision whether to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Matter of Barton v. N.Y.C. Employee. Ret. Sys., supra., 248 AD3d 909. The movant also must show "prejudice by the offending conduct . . . Prejudice is shown where the party's actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party" (Matter of Lepper v. Village of Babylon, 230 AD3d 584 (2nd Dept., 2024) "Once the moving party makes this showing, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute the movant's showing, or to offer evidence of a defense, such as an inability to comply with the order" (Matter of Barton v. N.Y.C. Employee. Ret. Sys., 248 AD3d 909 (2nd Dept., 2026)).

See, Matter of Puig v. New York State Police, 240 AD3d 1120 (3rd Dept., 2025) where an application for contempt was denied based upon the finding that the Court did not specifically order the disclosure of disciplinary records. See also, Shea v. Signal Hill Rd. LLC, 206 AD3d 1541 (3rd Dept., 2022) wherein denial of an application for contempt was sustained as falling within the Court's discretion where the Court directed compliance with a restrictive covenant but "the directive ends there, reasonably leaving defendants uncertain as to the timing of the required compliance" and therefore "[t]here was no clear and unequivocal mandate for defendants to have disobeyed". Also, Matter of Justice v. Fischer, 126 AD3d 1266 (3rd Dept., 2015) (denial of a contempt allegation against DOCCS was affirmed as a proper exercise of discretion when DOCCS attempted to comply with a demand for records but Petitioner did not cooperate with DOCCS attempts); Integrity Real Estate Consultants v. Re/Max of NY, Inc., 213 AD3d 815 (2nd Dept., 2023) (denial of a contempt finding was affirmed where "there was no clear and unequivocal mandate specifically addressed to the conduct at issue"). See also, Benjamin v. Yeroushalmi, ____ AD3d ____, 2026 NY Slip Op 05071 (2nd Dept., 2026); Matter of Ghokassian v. Portio-Ghokassian, ____ AD3d ____, 2026 NY Slip Op 04854 (2nd Dept., 2026); Matter of Kyle J. v. Taylor K., 250 AD3d 1184 (3rd Dept., 2026); Keller v. Keller, 246 AD3d 1255 (3rd Dept., 2026)).

Discussion

This Court's analysis begins with the recognition of the significant relief and changes to DOCCS processes that Petitioners have secured through these proceedings. Based upon the submissions and subsequently reported cases, this Court agrees that DOCCS seemingly continues to violate numerous provisions of the HALT Act  ¹⁴ . This Court also agrees that it is imperative that these continuing violations be addressed and remedied. Nevertheless, it is the Court's conclusion that the ongoing violations of the HALT Act articulated by Petitioners are not the result of any contempt of this Court's Order. Rather, as this Court addressed in D.G. v. Rodriguez, ___Misc. 3d. 252 N.Y.S.3d 889 (Supreme Court, Albany County, 2026), DOCCS has been charged by the legislature to follow a flawed statute that is written in a way that facilitates prisoners being subjected to lengthy periods of confinement without any practical remedy. As a practical matter, the process to appeal any excessive penalty is far longer than the length of the penalties imposed. As a result, by the time a contest regarding an excessive penalty is decided in an Article 78, the matter has generally become moot.

Nevertheless, the question before this Court in this proceeding is more limited and, with-regard-to this limited question, it is the finding of this Court that the litany of corrective measures taken by DOCCS in response to this Court's Decision and Order are sufficient to defeat the allegation of a willful violation. As such, the requested finding of contempt is not supported by the record as Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proof. While the Court recognizes the more global issues that Petitioners seek to address, any remedy for these issues must come either from the legislature or must be sought and secured in litigation that more directly addresses the specific deficits in the statute (see generally, Matter of Citizens Action of NY v. NYS Dept. of Environ. Conservation, ___ Misc 3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 25305 (Supreme Court, Albany County, 2025)).

Contrary to Petitioners arguments, the specific unequivocal finding of this Court was that the "k (2) Confinement Policy" which was not authorized by statute, which essentially provided that any Tier III violation was "inherently" heinous or destructive, is null and void". The Court also unequivocally found that "all determinations made to place members of the certified class in extended segregated confinement, a residential rehabilitation unit, or any other unit requiring compliance with CL § 137(6)(k)(ii), made pursuant to the k(2) Confinement Policy, or determinations made without required specific written findings of fact and conclusions, were declared as null and void". The Court's only specific "directive" was that DOCCS cease their reliance on the policy.

For the purpose of this application, contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the Court did not direct nor order "DOCCS to review all previously issued sanctions and vacate those without specific written findings of fact and conclusions". The Court also did not direct nor order DOCCS to take steps to purge void determinations from their records, nor as represented by Petitioners, has this Court "ordered the agency to nullify sanctions made pursuant to its unlawful k(ii) confinement policy  ¹⁵ . Rather, the Court ruled, as a matter of law, that those findings are null and void. The question of what steps DOCCS should take to identify and/or correct their records is not properly brought before this Court by way of this contempt petition. Moreover, the Court did not specifically direct that DOCCS undertake the type of comprehensive review of thousands of prior determinations as urged by Petitioners in order to determine which findings were deficient and void. While this Court acknowledges that continuing violations of the litany of HALT provisions occur and are repeatedly addressed in written decisions, these continuing violations do not constitute contempt of the specific Order entered by this Court in this matter.

The record demonstrates that DOCCS has taken significant steps to systematically change the way Hearing Officers conduct hearings and the format and content of their findings of fact. A review of the training materials that have been submitted show that all Hearing Officers have been provided with copies of this Court's decision and have been given specific and targeted instructions regarding compliance. Notably, in its memorandum of law, Petitioners acknowledge that "DOCCS plainly recognizes what is required by the Court, as it created training materials that make clear to hearing officers that the k(ii) analysis is a two-part inquiry that requires individualized analysis"¹⁶ . Petitioners then essentially argue that insofar as these conceded measures did not have the level of impact expected or desired by Petitioners, that DOCCS should be held in contempt. It is the finding of this Court that Petitioners argument misunderstands this Court's prior Decision and Order and its limited role in a contempt proceeding.

The record is clear that in an attempt to comply with this Court's decision, DOCCS has reviewed thousands of prior findings and through a reasonable and comprehensive process, has identified those prior cases where sufficient findings of fact were not made. By Petitioner's own reporting, almost seven-hundred findings have been modified or reversed, including almost eighty-five percent of those cases involving active SHU sanctions that pre-dated this Court's decision. Moreover, as outlined by counsel for Petitioner, DOCCS met with counsel for Petitioners to discuss the results of the review and provided seventy-eight hearing packets for counsel's review. This Court notes that none of these steps taken by DOCCS were specifically ordered by this Court. It is the Court's finding that these efforts establish a level of good faith that belies Petitioners allegations and their request for a finding of contempt.

While Petitioners dispute the specific steps that were taken to comply with the Decision and Order, and also dispute specific determinations that were made after review, it is the finding of this Court that these disagreements with DOCCS determinations and the processes that were followed to identify deficient prior findings are insufficient to support a finding that DOCCS willfully "disobeyed" this Court's Order in a manner that rises to the level of contempt.

All other issues raised by Petitioners in support of the instant motion that have not been specifically addressed by this Court have been duly considered and determined to be without merit.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied in all respects.

The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR § 2220.

Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule regarding notice of entry.

Dated: September 4, 2026

Kingston, New York

ENTER,

HON. KEVIN R. BRYANT, J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In determining this motion, this Court has considered documents filed on NYSCEF as cited herein as well as all other filings in this matter that have been electronically filed with the Court.

2.   While Petitioner cites to page 14 of this Court's decision, as addressed below, Petitioner has misrepresented the Court's holding and taken language out of context.

3.   NYSCEF doc. 128, page 1, 2

4.   Id., page 4, 5

5.   Id., page 5

6.   Id., page 21, 22

7.   NYSCEF doc. 158, page 2

8.   Id., page 10

9.   NYSCEF doc. 157, page 5

10.   Id., page 3

11.   Correction Law § 137 (6)(j)(ii)

12.   Correction Law § 137 (6)(i)

13.    Fuquan F. v. Annucci, 81 Misc 3d 517 (Supreme Court, Albany County, 2023)

14.   See,; Matter of Baher v. Rodriguez, 244 AD3d 1537 (3rd Dept., 2025); Matter of Wingate v. Martuscello, 249 AD3d 14 (3rd Dept., 2025); In Matter of Spencer v. Martuscello, 244 AD3d 1463 (3rd Dept., 2025); Peterkin v. DOCCS, 242 AD3d 26 (3rd Dept., 2025). In each of these cases, the Court found violations of the HALT Act and repeatedly stated that "hearing officers have no authority to disregard the HALT Act's statutory limitations and requirements by substituting their own judgment and imposing penalties beyond those which the law allow — for whatever reason" and repeatedly warned DOCCS that "to the extent this unlawful practice is continuing, it must cease".

15.   NYSCEF doc. 128, page 8

16.   Id., page 9

Kevin R. Bryant, J.