People ex rel. Vega v. Smith
| Decision Date | 15 October 1985 |
| Parties | , 485 N.E.2d 997 The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Saul VEGA, Respondent, v. Harold J. SMITH, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants. The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel., Joseph CORCORAN, Respondent, v. Harold J. SMITH, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Brother Andre PORTER, Respondent, v. Harold J. SMITH, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Handel SEMPER, Respondent, v. Harold J. SMITH, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Appellant. In the Matter of Wesley PRIMO, Respondent, v. Harold J. SMITH, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Edward NESMITH, Respondent, v. Harold J. SMITH, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Leigh E. Anderson and Norman P. Effman, Attica, for respondents.
These six appeals involving prison disciplinary hearings put before us the question whether, consistent with the State law requirement of "substantial evidence" for administrative determinations and the Federal constitutional requirement of due process, written misbehavior reports can serve as the evidentiary basis for determinations that inmates violated institutional rules. We answer that question in the affirmative. In the circumstances presented, the disciplinary determinations satisfy both State and Federal requirements.
The facts with respect to the six determinations are summarized below.
On September 23, 1983, after a superintendent's hearing at Attica Correctional Facility, respondent Vega was found guilty of violating an institutional rule prohibiting possession of "contraband classified as a weapon," and committed for 30 days to a Special Housing Unit. This determination was based on a misbehavior report dated September 16, 1983 and delivered to Vega the following day, signed by Correction Officer Stelmaszyk, indorsed by two other employee witnesses and "initialed" by Sergeant Charlanow. According to the report, Stelmaszyk was checking Vega's personal property with a metal detector, incident to his transfer to a Special Housing Unit, when he received a reading that there was On September 22, Vega met with a correction counselor (an "assistant") 1 assigned to assist him with respect to the hearing, and requested no witnesses. At the hearing held the following day Vega was advised about the procedure, including the fact that he could have witnesses on his behalf, and the misbehavior report was then read to him. When asked if he admitted or denied the charge, Vega responded "Oh, I deny," and said he had nothing further to say. He asked for no witnesses to be called. Vega was found guilty of the charge and the penalty was imposed.
metal in Vega's Bible. The officer found half a razor blade stuck deeply between the pages, and then the other half embedded in the binding between two pages.
Vega's habeas corpus petition was dismissed on the ground that the written report constituted substantial evidence in support of the disposition, but the Appellate Division, after converting the proceeding to one under article 78, reversed and granted the petition, 105 A.D.2d 1145, 482 N.Y.S.2d 1017.
After a superintendent's hearing at Attica, by determination dated October 7, 1983, respondent Corcoran was found guilty of violating institutional rules in that he refused to obey a direct order and failed to comply with count procedures. The penalty imposed was 60 days keeplock, loss of privileges, and 60 days loss of good time. The determination was based on a misbehavior report dated October 4, 1983 and delivered to Corcoran the next day, signed by Correction Officer Knapp, indorsed by one employee witness and initialed by Sergeant Ellsworth. According to Knapp, when taking a head count he found Corcoran in bed, ordered him to stand for the count, and Corcoran refused.
Corcoran refused the assignment of an assistant in preparation for the hearing. At the hearing October 7, Corcoran was advised about the procedure, including the fact that he could have witnesses on his behalf, but said he did not wish to call any. After Knapp's misbehavior report was read Corcoran pleaded not guilty, adding that he was never given a direct order: The charges were sustained and the penalty imposed.
Relying on its decision in Vega, Supreme Court dismissed Corcoran's habeas corpus petition challenging the determination. The Appellate Division converted the proceeding to one under article 78, reversed and granted the petition, 105 A.D.2d 1142, 482 N.Y.S.2d 618, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the determination.
As the result of a disciplinary hearing held July 19, 1983 at Attica, respondent Porter was found guilty of violating institutional rules prohibiting refusal to obey a direct order, to obey all posted rules and regulations, and to produce his ID card, and penalized 25 days confinement without privileges. The determination was based upon a misbehavior report dated July 17, 1983 and delivered to Porter the next day, signed by Correction Officer Donaldson and initialed by Sergeant "VJK." According to the report, while escorting a company back from the mess hall, Donaldson saw and heard Porter make an obscene comment, whereupon he requested his ID card. Porter twice refused, and refused to give his cell block or step to the back of the company. Donaldson followed Porter to his cell, again asked for his ID card, and was again refused. Porter refused the aid of an assistant in preparation for the hearing. At the hearing, he was advised about Supreme Court denied Porter's article 78 petition finding sufficient admissions of at least part of the charges to warrant the punishment imposed. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the petition, 105 A.D.2d 1144, 482 N.Y.S.2d 1017.
the procedure, including the fact that he could have witnesses on his behalf, but he asked for no witnesses to be called. He pleaded not guilty and denied the substance of the report, explaining that Donaldson was escorting his company back from the mess hall, stopped the line twice, got angry and requested the first 15 inmates' ID cards--including his, which he refused to produce--and was then told by Donaldson that he would do nothing about it. The charges were sustained and the penalty imposed.
Respondent Semper was, after a disciplinary hearing at Attica on July 21, 1983, found guilty of violating institutional rules prohibiting threats, harassment and refusal to obey a direct order, and penalized 20 days keeplock without privileges. The determination was based on a misbehavior report dated July 18 and delivered to Semper the next day, signed by Correction Officer S. Rissinger, indorsed by two employee witnesses and initialed by a Sergeant. According to the report, while returning to vocational school Semper refused Rissinger's order to keep up with the company and, when the officer spoke with him about lagging behind Semper responded with obscenities and told the officer to take him back to the block (which was done). Semper, en route, squared off in a fighting stance, put up his arms, and threatened to hit the officer. Ultimately Semper complied with the order to put down his hands and return to the block, threatening along the way.
Semper refused the assignment of an assistant in preparation for the hearing. At the hearing he was advised about the procedure, including the fact that he could have witnesses on his behalf, but requested none. Semper pleaded not guilty, contending that he had complied with Rissinger's directions, that Rissinger accused him falsely of going back to the block or refusing to go to school, and that they began arguing--a continuation of the fact that Rissinger had been "on case" for days. Semper acknowledged raising his hands as they walked, but denied squaring off. The hearing officer dismissed a charge of interference, found respondent guilty of the other charges, and imposed a penalty.
Supreme Court converted respondent's habeas corpus petition to one under article 78 and vacated the disposition, concluding that it was error to rely solely on the misbehavior report. The Appellate Division affirmed, 105 A.D.2d 1147, 482 N.Y.S.2d 1018, and we granted leave to appeal.
Following a disciplinary hearing on September 15, 1983, respondent Primo was found guilty of refusing to obey a direct order and interfering with an employee, and penalized 15 days confinement to cell without privileges. The determination was based on a misbehavior report dated September 10, 1983 and delivered to Primo September 12, signed by Correction Officer K. Callaghan and indorsed by two employee witnesses. According to the report, while Callaghan was attempting to frisk him, Primo, contrary to orders, repeatedly took his hands off the wall. When Callaghan escorted him back to his cell, Primo was very loud and made an obscene comment.
Primo refused the assignment of an assistant in preparation for the hearing. At the hearing, he was advised of the procedure, including the fact that he could have witnesses on his behalf, and he pleaded not guilty. Primo contended that he did not take his hands off the wall, and although he did turn his head around several times during the frisk, he did so because there were "about 8 or 10 officers" behind him. He denied that Callaghan escorted him back to his cell, and the use of profanity. At Primo's request, the hearing officers in Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of The Application of Jaime Gongora v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ.
...a conclusion.” Miller v. DeBuono, 90 N.Y.2d 783, 793, 666 N.Y.S.2d 548, 689 N.E.2d 518 (1997); People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997 (1985) (emphasis added). See New York Botanical Garden v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 413, 422, 671 N.Y.S.2d 423,......
-
Abdur-Raheem v. Mann
...such as misbehavior reports are permissible, assuming that the evidence is sufficiently reliable (People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997). Further, it has been held that confidential information may be considered even though the inmate has not been per......
-
Seelig v. Koehler
..." 'The operation of a correctional institution is at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.' " (People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997, quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2980, 41 L.Ed.2d 935). Prisons are "fraug......
-
Creech v. SCHOELLKOPH
...reporting officer." Perez v. Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 617, 499 N.Y.S.2d 659, 490 N.E.2d 526 (1986); People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997 (1985) ("Nor does due process of law require that disciplinary board members interview the officers who wrote ......