Matter of Cargill v Howard
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Prison disciplinary proceedings and due process rights within the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS).
A Tier II hearing found petitioner guilty of providing false information and possessing unauthorized literature; the administrative appeal affirmed.
The DOCCS Tier II disciplinary determination finding petitioner guilty.
The Hearing Officer failed to make reasonable and substantial efforts to secure testimony from a requested witness (a parolee), violating 7 NYCRR 253.5(a) [incarcerated individual may call witnesses if testimony is material, not redundant, and does not jeopardize safety or correctional goals]. Because the sanction did not impose an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin v Conner, the proper remedy is annulment and remittal for a new hearing.
Background
Proceeding under CPLR article 78 [special proceeding to challenge administrative determinations], transferred to the Appellate Division, arose from a misbehavior report based on an investigation of petitioner’s JPay emails. The report alleged petitioner received pictures of underage girls and literature on defeating lie detector tests used in DOCCS’s sex offender treatment program. The report stated the pictures were sent by a parolee who had previously been housed on the same unit as petitioner and pretended to be his aunt; the literature was allegedly sent by petitioner’s mother. The investigator reported that the parolee admitted friendship and phone contact with petitioner, which petitioner denied. Petitioner requested the parolee as a witness at the Tier II hearing. After a brief adjournment, the Hearing Officer denied the request, citing lack of contact information, without seeking such information from the testifying investigator or DOCCS records.
Lower Court Decision
The Tier II Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty of providing false information and possessing unauthorized literature. The administrative appeal to DOCCS affirmed the determination.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division annulled the determination and remitted for further proceedings. The court held the Hearing Officer failed to make reasonable and substantial efforts to contact the requested parolee witness as required by 7 NYCRR 253.5(a) [incarcerated individual may call witnesses if testimony is material, not redundant, and does not jeopardize safety or correctional goals]. Given that the penalty (loss of privileges) did not constitute an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin v Conner, the proper remedy was a new hearing rather than vacatur with expungement.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that in Tier II prison disciplinary hearings, officials must make reasonable and substantial efforts to secure requested witness testimony—even when the incarcerated individual lacks contact information—by, for example, consulting investigators who interviewed the witness or DOCCS records. Failure to do so violates the regulatory right to call witnesses and requires annulment and remittal when the sanction does not trigger due process protections tied to atypical and significant hardship.
Hearing officers must actively attempt to locate and produce material witnesses requested by incarcerated individuals under 7 NYCRR 253.5(a); mere lack of contact information from the inmate is insufficient to deny testimony, and such failure mandates annulment and a new hearing if the sanctions are not atypically harsh.