Jenkins v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 11 February 1993
• Citation: 593 N.Y.S.2d 576,190 A.D.2d 937
• Parties: In the Matter of James JENKINS, Petitioner, v. Thomas COUGHLIN III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 576

593 N.Y.S.2d 576

190 A.D.2d 937

In the Matter of James JENKINS, Petitioner, v. Thomas COUGHLIN III, as Commissioner of the Department of

Correctional Services, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Feb. 11, 1993.

Betsy Hutchings, Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Ithaca, for petitioner.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (John McConnell, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before WEISS, P.J., and LEVINE, MERCURE, MAHONEY and HARVEY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After a Superintendent's hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting rioting and leaving an assigned area without authorization based upon his activities during an inmate uprising on May 28-29, 1991 at Southport Correctional Facility in Chemung County. Petitioner contends that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and that procedural errors require annulment.

The misbehavior report filed against petitioner states that petitioner "was personally identified in the A-block yard as one of the participants in the take over" by two correction officers with the aid of a "spotter type scope", that petitioner had originally been secured in an exercise unit but was seen during the incident at various locations throughout the yard, and that he "continued to participate" in the riot although all inmates were given the opportunity to leave the yard. This report gave petitioner sufficient notice under the circumstances of the nature of the charges against him (see, Matter of Williams v. Coughlin, 190 A.D.2d 883, 886, 593 N.Y.S.2d 570, 572; Matter of Vogelsang v. Coombe, 105 A.D.2d 913, 914, 482 N.Y.S.2d 348, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 835, 498 N.Y.S.2d 364, 489 N.E.2d 251). In addition, the report, coupled with the confirmatory testimony of the correction officer who authored the report that petitioner was out of his assigned area during the uprising, constitutes substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt of the charges against him (see, Matter of Williams v. Coughlin, supra; Matter of Vitiello v. Coughlin, 159 A.D.2d 791, 792, 552 N.Y.S.2d 63). Further, annulment is not required based upon the inadequacy of petitioner's employee assistant. Petitioner was given an opportunity to have both witnesses he requested on his assistance form testify at the hearing, and thus was not prejudiced by the failure of the employee assistant to interview these witnesses (see, Matter of Serrano v. Coughlin, 152 A.D.2d 790, 543 N.Y.S.2d 571). In addition, the inability of the employee assistant to obtain documents requested by petitioner because they had not yet arrived at the facility did not establish that the assistant failed to perform his duties (see, Matter of Turner v. Coughlin, 162 A.D.2d 781, 557 N.Y.S.2d 692). Further, petitioner was not denied due process by respondent's failure to record a session at which several Hearing Officers viewed videotapes and photographs of the uprising (see, Matter of Williams v....