Huggins v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 03 November 1994
• Citation: 209 A.D.2d 770,617 N.Y.S.2d 989
• Parties: In the Matter of Samuel HUGGINS, Appellant, v. Thomas COUGHLIN, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 989

617 N.Y.S.2d 989

209 A.D.2d 770

In the Matter of Samuel HUGGINS, Appellant, v. Thomas COUGHLIN, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Nov. 3, 1994.

Wayne C. Wheeler, Prisoners' Legal Services, Ithaca, for appellant.

G. Oliver Koppell, Atty. Gen. (Martin A. Hotvet, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

YESAWICH, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered June 1, 1993 in Albany County, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR 8601 for an award of counsel fees.

In a prior proceeding, this court annulled respondent's determination finding petitioner guilty of violating several prison disciplinary rules (see, Matter of Huggins v. Coughlin, 184 A.D.2d 823, 584 N.Y.S.2d 341) and petitioner thereafter moved for an award of counsel fees pursuant to CPLR article 86. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding the State's position to have been "substantially justified" (CPLR 8601[a], and petitioner appeals.

Having prevailed against the State in his CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner is entitled to recover reasonable counsel fees, unless respondent can show that the State's position--that is "the act, acts or failure to act from which judicial review is sought" (CPLR 8602[e]--was "substantially justified" (CPLR 8601[a]. ¹ To meet this burden, respondent must, solely on the record before the administrative agency (see, Matter of Scibilia v. Regan, 199 A.D.2d 736, 737, 605 N.Y.S.2d 444), demonstrate "a reasonable basis both in law and fact" for the underlying determination (Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 2550, 101 L.Ed.2d 490; see also, Matter of Scibilia v. Regan, supra, 199 A.D.2d at 737, 605 N.Y.S.2d 444; Matter of Simpkins v. Riley, 193 A.D.2d 1009, 1010, 598 N.Y.S.2d 352). The mere fact that an agency determination is not ultimately found to have been supported by substantial evidence does not ipso facto signify that its position was devoid of any legal or factual support (see, Cohen v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 582, 585); the closeness of the question, or the presence of some evidence supporting the determination, are fair grounds for litigation and may constitute sufficient justification for having taken a position that turns out to be incorrect (see, Matter of Scibilia v. Regan, supra, 199 A.D.2d at 737, 605 N.Y.S.2d 444).

At the time of the agency determination at issue here, it was well established that a prison disciplinary finding could be based solely on the testimony of a confidential informant, but only if the Hearing Officer had made an independent evaluation of the informant's credibility, on the basis of some objective evidence from which such an assessment could reasonably be made (see, Matter of Wynter v. Jones, 135 A.D.2d 1032, 1033, 522 N.Y.S.2d 966; Matter of Alvarado v. LeFevre, 111 A.D.2d 475, 476, 488 N.Y.S.2d 856). A third party's assessment of the informant's credibility could not be relied upon (see, Matter of Wanton v. Coughlin, 117 A.D.2d 376, 377-378, 503 N.Y.S.2d 186). The testimony or report of a third party could, however, if sufficiently detailed, provide the basis for an independent assessment of credibility by the Hearing Officer (see, id.; see also, Matter of Colon v. Coughlin, 147 A.D.2d 802, 537 N.Y.S.2d 680). Indeed, this court had held, in one case, that a Hearing Officer could gauge an informant's credibility from the contents of a transcript "summarizing interviews" that a correction facility Superintendent had with informants (see, Matter of Harris v. Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 896, 897, 498 N.Y.S.2d 276, appeal withdrawn 69 N.Y.2d 743, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1032, 504 N.E.2d 700).

In opposition to the CPLR article 78 petition, respondent argued, albeit unsuccessfully, that Correction Officer James Doland's written summary of his conversation with the informant, coupled with Doland's confidential...