Matter of James A. Hone v. Donita McIntosh, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Prison disciplinary proceedings and administrative law review under CPLR article 78 [special proceeding to challenge administrative action]; substantial evidence; preservation of procedural objections.
A Tier II Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty of creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order; the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division without a merits ruling by Supreme Court.
The guilty finding for refusing a direct order was annulled and ordered expunged from petitioner’s institutional record.
Respondent conceded, and the record confirmed, that substantial evidence did not support the refusing-a-direct-order charge.
Background
An incarcerated individual (petitioner) was issued a misbehavior report for harassment, creating a disturbance, and refusing a direct order after he allegedly raised his voice at a staff member discussing his work assignment, drawing the attention of three other incarcerated library clerks. After a Tier II disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order and sanctioned with 15 days’ loss of package and commissary privileges and referral to the program committee. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding [special proceeding to challenge administrative action], asserting evidentiary insufficiency, transcript gaps, retaliation, and various procedural violations (employee assistance, video review, witness intimidation), and alleging discriminatory treatment by staff.
Lower Court Decision
No merits decision by Supreme Court; the Article 78 proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division. Administratively, the Tier II hearing sustained two charges and the administrative appeal affirmed the determination and penalty.
Appellate Division Reversal
The court modified the determination by annulling the refusing-a-direct-order charge and directing expungement. It otherwise confirmed the determination. It held substantial evidence supported the creating-a-disturbance charge; the transcript was adequate for review; retaliation and denial of conduct were credibility issues for the Hearing Officer; and procedural objections (employee assistance, video review, alleged witness intimidation) were unpreserved because not raised at the hearing or in the administrative appeal. Alleged discriminatory treatment was to be pursued via the facility grievance process. Because no good time was lost and the penalty had already been served, no remittal for penalty reassessment was required and the severity challenge was academic.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that prison disciplinary determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence and credibility resolutions are for the hearing officer. Clarifies that procedural challenges must be preserved at the hearing or on administrative review or they are unpreserved on Article 78 review. Confirms that where no good time is affected and the penalty has been served, remittal for penalty reassessment is unnecessary and penalty-severity claims are academic. Also directs that claims of discriminatory staff conduct should be raised through the grievance process.
In Article 78 review of prison discipline, unsupported charges will be annulled, but supported findings will be sustained; preserve procedural objections at the hearing, and absent loss of good time, completed penalties generally moot severity and remittal issues.