Bryant v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 30 April 1991
• Citation: 77 N.Y.2d 642,572 N.E.2d 23,569 N.Y.S.2d 582
• Parties: , 572 N.E.2d 23 In the Matter of Victor BRYANT, Appellant, et al., Petitioners, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent. In the Matter of Roberto SUVILL et al., Petitioners, and Sandy Serrano, Appellant, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 582

569 N.Y.S.2d 582

77 N.Y.2d 642, 572 N.E.2d 23

In the Matter of Victor BRYANT, Appellant, et al., Petitioners, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the Department

of Correctional Services, Respondent.

In the Matter of Roberto SUVILL et al., Petitioners,

and

Sandy Serrano, Appellant, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the Department

of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 30, 1991.

[77 N.Y.2d 643] Lois Goland and David C. Leven, for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Lee A. Davis, Karen L. Murtagh-Monks and David C. Leven, for appellant in the second above-entitled proceeding.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Martin A. Hotvet, O. Peter [77 N.Y.2d 644] Sherwood, Peter H. Schiff and Joseph Koczaja, of counsel), for respondent in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KAYE, Judge.

At issue in these appeals by two petitioner-inmates is the sufficiency of written reports--offered as substantial evidence of petitioners' violation of a disciplinary rule prohibiting participation in violent group conduct--charging that all inmates present in the mess hall at dinnertime actively participated in a riot. We conclude that, without some specificity as to the offensive conduct attributed to petitioners, these reports alone did not constitute substantial evidence of guilt, and the orders confirming the administrative determinations should therefore be reversed.

I.

Petitioners were inmates at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County when, during dinner on July 31, 1988, a disturbance broke out in the north mess hall. Correction officers who were present later estimated that 130 to 140 inmates were in the mess hall at the time; petitioner Serrano estimated more. Officers and inmates were injured, and tear gas was used to regain control.

Among the inmates subsequently charged with infractions of prison disciplinary rules for their alleged participation in the disturbance were petitioners, Sandy Serrano and Victor Bryant. Both were charged with violating prison disciplinary rule 104.10 ("Riot, Disturbances and Demonstrations") (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][5][i], which provides that inmates "shall not conspire or take any action which is intended to or results in the takeover of any area of the facility, or, acting in a group, engage in any violent conduct or conduct involving the threat of violence."

Facts Relating to Serrano

Petitioner Serrano's hearing was held on August 15, 1988 at Attica Correctional Facility, to which he had been transferred following the disturbance. The Hearing Officer's statement lists the following as the evidence on which he relied in reaching the determination of guilt: a written inmate misbehavior report prepared by Sergeant Smith, who was present during the incident; a written report prepared by Lieutenant Phillips for the Deputy Superintendent of Security describing the results of his investigation; a written statement by Edward Ross, a civilian cook who was present during the incident; information from a "confidential inmate informant" that petitioner was seen throwing trays and plates at officers, as noted both in a written report from Phillips and by him in telephone testimony at the hearing; and written statements by Officers Adams and Beecher, who were also present during the disturbance. Although not mentioned by the Hearing Officer in the statement of evidence relied upon, an additional written report by Smith was also read into the record. Except for the inmate informant, none of the reports mentions petitioner.

Smith's misbehavior report contains the following description of the conduct that was the basis for the disciplinary charge:

"On 7/31/88, at approximately 3:42 p.m., a riot situation erupted in the North Messhall. This incident included numerous assaults on staff by participants. The assaults included use of weapons, throwing of objects (trays, water pitchers, dishes, etc.) and striking with fists. Subject inmate was identified as being in the messhall during this riot. Employees on the scene verified that all inmates in the Messhall were actively participating in this riot. This situation necessitated the discharge of chemical agents to regain control. Upon discharge, several inmates did flee the area. Those remaining were placed in a prone position on the floor. Identification of subject inmate was by departmental I.D. card and during the chemical agent decontamination process."

Phillips' written report stated that he had received information that the disturbance was a "well planned attack against staff," and that inmates had actively sought participants during the afternoon prior to the disturbance. His conclusion that this was a well-planned attack was further buttressed by his own observations on the scene; he stated, moreover, that he "personally observed all inmates in the mess hall participating in this disturbance, by throwing objects (pitchers, trays, utensils, etc.) yelling, screaming and rushing towards officers in the mess hall."

The remaining three brief eyewitness reports are virtually identical. Ross, the civilian cook, reported that "every inmate in the mess hall at this time was participating in the riot by throwing utensils, pitchers, trays or food." Adams reported that to his "observation every inmate in the messhall was in full participation of the riot," and Beecher reported that to his "observation every inmate in the messhall was in full participation of the riot."

The remaining evidence was conveyed by Phillips from a confidential inmate informant. In a report to the Hearing Officer, Phillips reported that during his investigation "it has been learned that inmate S. Serrano, 86A1666, was observed throwing trays and plates at officers. This information was received through a confidential inmate informant." During the hearing, Phillips by telephone stated that he and his staff had previously received confidential information from this informant that had proven correct, and that he then considered the source reliable. Phillips further noted that the informant had been present in the mess hall, and that he had identified Serrano from an array of 100 to 150 photos.

Though Serrano admitted his presence in the mess hall for food, he denied any participation in the riot, or any knowledge of a planned incident.

Based on this evidence, the Hearing Officer found Serrano guilty of violating disciplinary rule 104.10, and imposed a penalty of 365 days' confinement in his cell, loss of privileges, and loss of 365 days' good time.

Facts Relating to Bryant

Petitioner Bryant's hearing was conducted on August 8, 1988 at Great Meadow Correctional Facility. The same evidence was offered against him, with two exceptions: no statement was submitted by Beecher, and there was no confidential inmate information. Like Serrano, Bryant admitted he was in the mess hall but denied participation in, or prior knowledge of, the disturbance.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer found Bryant guilty, expressing disbelief of his claim that he "sat there calmly, while things were being thrown over [his] head." The penalty imposed was 365 days in the special housing unit, loss of privileges, and loss of one year of good time, which was modified on administrative appeal to five months in the special housing unit and five months' loss of good time.

After exhausting administrative remedies, petitioners brought separate article 78 petitions challenging the determinations as unsupported by substantial evidence. While excluding from its consideration any information provided against Serrano by the confidential informant, the Appellate Division confirmed both findings of guilt. The court concluded that the reports of individuals with firsthand knowledge, coupled with petitioners' admitted presence on the scene, provided substantial evidence supporting the determinations. We granted leave and now reverse.

II.

We begin our analysis with several well-settled propositions. A prison disciplinary determination must be supported by substantial evidence, meaning that in order to sustain a determination of guilt, a court must find that the disciplinary authorities have offered such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact (People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997). Equally well settled is the proposition that a written misbehavior report meeting the requirements spelled out...