In the Matter of Jordan Evans v Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Prison disciplinary review via Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) article 78 [special proceeding to challenge administrative actions by state bodies], addressing substantial evidence and penalty remittal.
A Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Tier III Hearing Officer found Evans guilty of drug possession, drug distribution, possession of contraband, and smuggling; the administrative appeal upheld the determination with penalties including a recommendation for loss of good time.
The findings of guilt for possessing contraband, distributing drugs, and smuggling were annulled, with directions to expunge references to those charges and to remit for redetermination of the penalty on the remaining violation.
Respondent conceded and the record confirmed those three charges lacked substantial evidence. The drug possession finding was supported by substantial evidence—the misbehavior report, testimony from officers involved in the search and testing, and a positive drug test. A witness’s confession raised a credibility question for the Hearing Officer and was not dispositive; additional procedural objections were unpreserved.
Background
During a search of Evans’s cell, officers found a plastic baggie and wax paper containing a white powder hidden in a box of rice; testing later determined the substance to be cocaine. Evans was charged with drug possession, drug distribution, possession of contraband, and smuggling. After a Tier III hearing, he was found guilty on all charges and the determination was upheld on administrative review. Evans commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which Supreme Court transferred to the Appellate Division.
Lower Court Decision
The DOCCS Tier III Hearing Officer found Evans guilty on four charges and imposed penalties including a recommendation of loss of good time; the administrative review affirmed. Supreme Court did not reach the merits and transferred the Article 78 proceeding to the Appellate Division.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified. The court annulled the determinations for possessing contraband, distributing drugs, and smuggling; directed expungement of those charges; and remitted for administrative redetermination of the penalty on the remaining drug possession violation. The court confirmed the drug possession finding, holding it was supported by substantial evidence and rejecting a witness’s confession as dispositive. Unraised procedural claims were deemed unpreserved.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that in CPLR article 78 review of prison discipline, a witness’s confession does not automatically negate substantial evidence where the record includes corroborating documentary and testimonial proof and a positive drug test; credibility determinations belong to the Hearing Officer. When some charges are annulled and the original penalty includes a loss-of-good-time recommendation, remittal for penalty redetermination is required. Preservation rules bar review of procedural objections not raised at the hearing.
In prison disciplinary Article 78 proceedings, courts may annul unsupported charges yet uphold others if substantial evidence exists; credibility resolutions by hearing officers stand, and penalties must be reconsidered when partially vacating findings that included a good-time loss.