Coleman v. Coombe
| Decision Date | 13 June 1985 |
| Citation | 482 N.E.2d 562,492 N.Y.S.2d 944,65 N.Y.2d 777 |
| Parties | , 482 N.E.2d 562 In the Matter of Larry COLEMAN, Appellant, v. Philip COOMBE, Jr., as Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 108 A.D.2d 1018, 485 N.Y.S.2d 587, should be reversed, with costs, respondents' determination annulled and the matter remitted to the Department of Correctional Services for a new hearing.
Respondents' regulations provide that an inmate facing disciplinary proceedings "may call witnesses on his behalf provided their testimony is material, is not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals" (7 NYCRR 254.5). In petitioner's proceeding, he requested that his brother be called as a witness to give testimony in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed. His request was denied on the grounds that the testimony would be irrelevant and unnecessary because petitioner had admitted violating the inmate rules. This was error because testimony in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed or raising a possible justification defense to the charged violation is relevant and material evidence (see, Matter of Cook v. Coughlin, 97 A.D.2d 663, 664, 469 N.Y.S.2d 204; Matter of De Mauro v. LeFevre, 91 A.D.2d 1156, 1157, 458 N.Y.S.2d 749; Matter of Santana v. Coughlin, 90 A.D.2d 947, 948, 457 N.Y.S.2d 944; Matter of Martin v. Coughlin, 90 A.D.2d 946, 458 N.Y.S.2d 257; see also, Matter of Garcia v. LeFevre, 64 N.Y.2d 1001, 1003, 489 N.Y.S.2d 48, 478 N.E.2d 189). Insofar as no other grounds provided for in the regulation were raised for refusing to call petitioner's brother as a witness, his request should have been granted. In view of our determination we do not decide whether the refusal to call petitioner's requested witness violated his due process rights (see, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, respondents' determination annulled and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Albany County, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Coughlin
...496, 105 S.Ct. 2192. 23. In its decision annulling the first hearing, the state court relied upon Matter of Coleman v. Coombe, 65 N.Y.2d 777, 492 N.Y.S.2d 944, 482 N.E.2d 562 (N.Y.1985) (Mem.). See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Memorandum at 2. In Coleman, the court affirmed the order of Supreme......
-
Giano v. Sullivan
...accorded where procedural errors are found to invalidate a prison disciplinary proceeding. See, e.g., Matter of Coleman v. Coombe, 65 N.Y.2d 777, 492 N.Y.S.2d 944, 482 N.E.2d 562 (1985) (new hearing where witness request at prior hearing had been improperly denied); Matter of Hill v. LeFevr......
-
Miller v. Brereton
...of the witnesses would have been redundant and, therefore, properly excluded ( see7 NYCRR 254.5[a]; Matter of Coleman v. Coombe, 65 N.Y.2d 777, 779–780, 492 N.Y.S.2d 944, 482 N.E.2d 562 [1985] ).1 The remaining contention has been considered and found to be without merit.MERCURE, J.P., SPAI......
-
Torres v. Coughlin
...272, 529 N.Y.S.2d 45; Matter of De Mauro v. Le Fevre, 91 A.D.2d 1156, 458 N.Y.S.2d 749, supra; but see, Matter of Coleman v. Coombe, 65 N.Y.2d 777, 492 N.Y.S.2d 944, 482 N.E.2d 562; Matter of Sabo v. Racette, 124 A.D.2d 920, 508 N.Y.S.2d 666). In view of our determination that expungement i......