Sanchez v. Coughlin
| Decision Date | 30 July 1987 |
| Citation | 132 A.D.2d 896,518 N.Y.S.2d 456 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Luis SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Thomas COUGHLIN, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Zwiebel, Brody & Kahn, P.C. (Alan S. Zwiebel, of counsel), Kingston, for petitioner.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Martin A. Hotvet, of counsel), Albany, for respondents.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.
On Father's Day 1985, a .22-caliber revolver was found in the bottom of a package addressed to petitioner who was then an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility. The package was one of two containing foodstuffs brought to the facility by a group including petitioner's wife, his daughter Leticia, his son Robert and the latter's girlfriend.
Upon arriving at the visitor's center, Leticia filled out a label in her mother's name and gave it to a correction officer, who indicated that he would affix the label to petitioner's packages. The packages, which were open, were then taken to another room, to which prisoners were not allowed access, where, out of the presence of visitors, the various packages destined for inmates were searched by officers. The gun was discovered in a package bearing petitioner's label; no fingerprints were taken from the gun.
The foregoing prompted officials to terminate the visit of petitioner's family and confine petitioner to the special housing unit. Thereafter, petitioner was charged and, following administrative hearings at which petitioner, his wife and Leticia testified and denied any complicity in the offenses, petitioner was found guilty of violating institutional rules prohibiting attempted smuggling and conspiracy to promote prison contraband. The penalty ultimately imposed was one year in the special housing unit and one year loss of good time and related privileges.
As framed by respondents, the issue presented is whether substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner was guilty. The substantial evidence standard is met where " 'in the end the finding is supported by the kind of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in serious affairs' " (People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997, quoting National Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, 94 F.2d 862, 873 [Hand, J.], cert. denied 304 U.S. 576, 58 S.Ct. 1046, 82 L.Ed. 1540).
This case hinges upon the propriety of the inference drawn by the hearing officer that because a gun was found in an open package provided by petitioner's family and intended for him, but which he neither possessed nor, so far as this record is concerned, knowingly controlled, it necessarily follows that he was implicated in a conspiracy designed to bring contraband into the facility.
Significantly, the record is barren of any evidence linking petitioner with the revolver. In lieu of such evidence, respondents would have us engage in the further supposition, undocumented, that it is not unreasonable to assume that inmates, like petitioner who have a good disciplinary record and relative freedom in the facility, would be enlisted by fellow inmates to obtain weapons for them. There being no proof that petitioner conspired with other prisoners to accomplish this end, adopting respondents' assumption works an unacceptable result in that it justifies punishing petitioner not for what he in fact did, but what it is speculated and surmised he did.
This is not to say that respondents were without a remedy for this infraction; they proceeded to have charges lodged against the son and also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. Le Fevre
...332, 485 N.E.2d 997; Matter of Felder v. Jones, 111 A.D.2d 472, 488 N.Y.S.2d 853). Petitioner's reliance upon Matter of Sanchez v. Coughlin, 132 A.D.2d 896, 518 N.Y.S.2d 456, and Matter of Trudo v. Le Fevre, 122 A.D.2d 319, 504 N.Y.S.2d 68, is misplaced. In those factually distinguishable c......
-
Varela v. Coughlin
...of a gun in a package which was addressed to an inmate and was brought into the facility by a visitor (Matter of Sanchez v. Coughlin, 132 A.D.2d 896, 898, 518 N.Y.S.2d 456). It is undisputed that petitioner had been transferred to the facility only a few days before the weapon was discovere......
-
Price v. Coughlin
...that his access was not exclusive (see, Matter of Caldwell v. Coughlin, 148 A.D.2d 905, 539 N.Y.S.2d 533; cf., Matter of Sanchez v. Coughlin, 132 A.D.2d 896, 518 N.Y.S.2d 456; Matter of Trudo v. LeFevre, 122 A.D.2d 319, 504 N.Y.S.2d 68). There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the......
-
Vega v. Coughlin
...150 A.D.2d 954, 955, 541 N.Y.S.2d 868, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 615, 549 N.Y.S.2d 960, 549 N.E.2d 151; see, Matter of Sanchez v. Coughlin, 132 A.D.2d 896, 898, 518 N.Y.S.2d 456). There is no merit to the other claims of impropriety raised in the Determination unanimously confirmed and petition ......