Caraway v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 28 January 2021
• Docket Number: 529758
• Citation: 141 N.Y.S.3d 166,190 A.D.3d 1198
• Parties: In the Matter of Raynard CARAWAY, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

190 A.D.3d 1198

141 N.Y.S.3d 166

In the Matter of Raynard CARAWAY, Petitioner,

v.Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

529758

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: January 4, 2021

Decided and Entered: January 28, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Pritzker, J.

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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While a correction sergeant was supervising inmates in the mess hall, petitioner approached the sergeant and stated that he needed to speak with him. The sergeant responded that he would speak to petitioner after the mess hall was clear. Petitioner became agitated and loudly demanded that the sergeant speak to him then, which drew the attention of other inmates. When the sergeant ordered petitioner to leave the mess hall, he walked toward the sergeant in an aggressive manner. The sergeant displayed a cannister of pepper spray, at which point petitioner left the mess hall. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with multiple prison disciplinary violations. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of creating a disturbance, refusing a direct order, making threats and harassment.¹ The determination was later upheld on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Petitioner asserts that the misbehavior report was defective because it was not endorsed by employee witnesses, contrary to the requirements of 7 NYCRR 251–3.1(b). However, petitioner failed to demonstrate that there were other employees in the mess hall who had "personal knowledge of the facts" surrounding the incident ( 7 NYCRR 251–3.1 [b]; see Matter of Brown v. Venettozzi, 162 A.D.3d 1434, 1435, 81 N.Y.S.3d 243 [2018] ; Matter of Nieves v. Annucci, 123 A.D.3d 1368, 1369, 997 N.Y.S.2d 847 [2014] ).

We are also unpersuaded that petitioner was improperly denied video footage of the incident captured by the sergeant's body camera. Petitioner first requested this footage at the commencement of the hearing and, after making a formal request for said footage, was advised by a lieutenant that there was "no body camera video of [the] incident." After petitioner requested further detail because he believed the sergeant was wearing a body camera during the incident, the Hearing Officer called the lieutenant to testify. The lieutenant explained that any footage captured on a body camera is automatically downloaded to a computer system every night and that he searched the computer system and there was nothing downloaded as to petitioner's incident. Then, after the sergeant testified that, to his knowledge, his body camera was fully operational the day of the incident and was turned on, the lieutenant was recalled and asked to check again for body camera footage of the incident. He advised that there was nothing pertaining to this incident either because the body camera was not turned on or because something was "screwed up" with the tape. Thus, petitioner was not improperly denied the footage inasmuch as the Hearing Officer's very thorough inquiry revealed that it did not exist (see Matter of Wimberly v. Annucci, 185 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 126 N.Y.S.3d 432 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 903, 2020 WL 7393392 [2020] ; Matter of Lashway v. Keyser, 178 A.D.3d 1224, 1225, 115 N.Y.S.3d 166 [2019] ). Finally, respondent concedes that substantial evidence does not support the charge of making threats and, thus, the finding of guilt as to that charge should be annulled and all references thereto expunged from petitioner's institutional record.² We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.

Egan Jr. and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Aarons, J. (concurring).

I agree with the majority, as well as respondent's concession, that substantial evidence does not support the charge of making threats. I also agree with the majority's holding rejecting petitioner's argument that the misbehavior report was defective. The majority and dissent diverge on whether petitioner was improperly denied video footage of the incident at issue. The dissent offers compelling grounds and policy reasons for its position, with which I agree. "[A]n inmate should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his [or her] defense when permitting him [or her] to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals" ( Matter of Hillard v. Coughlin, 187 A.D.2d 136, 139, 593 N.Y.S.2d 573 [1993] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 651, 601 N.Y.S.2d 580, 619 N.E.2d 658 [1993] ). Prison disciplinary determinations almost always hinge upon the credibility of the witnesses, and video footage may serve as critical corroborating evidence to support the position of the party charged with violating disciplinary rules (see Matter of Lewis v. Rivera, 32 A.D.3d 1120, 1121, 821 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2006] ). Although the Hearing Officer conducted an inquiry, as noted by the dissent, various conflicting reasons were offered as to why there was no video footage. In my view, such varying explanations were specious, at best. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon constraint of Matter of Anselmo v. Annucci, 176 A.D.3d 1283, 109 N.Y.S.3d 512 (2019), I concur with the result reached by the majority.

Garry, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority that substantial evidence does not support the charge of making threats, as respondent concedes. In respect to the disposition of the remaining charges, I respectfully dissent. During the disciplinary proceeding, petitioner made repeated requests for footage captured by the correction sergeant's body camera to establish his defense. The Hearing Officer, in turn, made repeated attempts to obtain that footage. A lieutenant, who was apparently in charge of maintaining the downloaded recordings, testified that he had checked the records maintained within the computer system and found no footage of the incident. The lieutenant explained that the footage is "automatically downloaded every night ... [s]o, any incident captured on the body camera would be on [the facility's] computer."

The sergeant later testified that he wore a body camera "every time" he was on duty, and that the camera was "fully operational during every chow" that he supervised. The sergeant testified that he conducted a test of his equipment every morning to ensure that the battery was charged and the camera was fully operational,...