From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Torres v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 31, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1080 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 31, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.


Petitioner was charged by two separate misbehavior reports with violation of a number of prison disciplinary rules as a result of his participation in the August 1, 1988 takeover of the special housing unit at Coxsackie Correctional Facility in Greene County. Tier III hearings were conducted August 17, 1988 through August 19, 1988, petitioner was found guilty of all charges and punishment was imposed. Following unsuccessful administrative review, petitioner brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the determination.

Respondent's determination should be confirmed and the petition dismissed. Initially, we reject the contentions that the Hearing Officer violated 7 NYCRR 254.5 by questioning witnesses outside of petitioner's presence and denying petitioner the right to call witnesses on his own behalf. Following the uprising, the 32 involved inmates were transferred to correctional facilities throughout the State. Petitioner was transferred to Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, the site of the instant hearings. Because disciplinary hearings were conducted with respect to each of the 32 inmates, many of whom requested testimony from hostages and other employees of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, arrangements were made to conduct all of the hearings on August 18, 1988, at which time the requested witnesses were made available for telephone interviews. In our view, this procedure was reasonable considering the time limitations imposed by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1, the number of hearings to be conducted and the need to separate the inmates following the riot.

One of the effects of conducting the hearings in this fashion was that petitioner could not be present during the questioning of witnesses. Rather, the Hearing Officer solicited questions from petitioner which were then asked of the witnesses over the telephone. We note that petitioner raised no objection to this procedure at a time when any error could have been corrected, thereby failing to preserve the argument for our consideration (see, Matter of Bates v. Coughlin, 145 A.D.2d 854, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 602; Matter of McClean v. LeFevre, 142 A.D.2d 911; Matter of Law v. Racette, 120 A.D.2d 846). Further, under the unusual circumstances of this case, we see no violation of 7 NYCRR 254.5 (b). To conduct the hearings in any other fashion would clearly have jeopardized institutional safety or correctional goals and the record discloses the specific reason for the denial of petitioner's right to be present (see, Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 N.Y.2d 141, 148; see also, Matter of Cortez v Coughlin, 67 N.Y.2d 907, 909; cf., Matter of Garcia v. LeFevre, 64 N.Y.2d 1001, 1003).

For the same reasons, we see no prejudicial error arising out of the Hearing Officer's inability to obtain the testimony of Correction Officer Shipley, who was out of the State with no known telephone number at the time of the hearings (see, Matter of Law v. Racette, supra, at 848). Notably, petitioner listened to the tape-recorded testimony of all the witnesses, was given an opportunity to make a further statement and voiced no objection to the absence of testimony from Shipley (see, Matter of Harris v. Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 896, 897, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 610, 1047). Similarly, we see no error in the Hearing Officer's failure to interview two inmate witnesses who petitioner could identify only by cell number (see, Matter of Law v. Racette, supra). Their testimony would have been cumulative at best (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]), considering that the inmate witnesses all absolved petitioner of any wrongdoing. Petitioner's claim of inadequate employee assistance must also fail since the requested witnesses testified at the hearing and, accordingly, there has been no showing of prejudice (see, Matter of Serrano v. Coughlin, 152 A.D.2d 790, 792). Finally, there was substantial evidence to support respondent's determination (see, Matter of Rosado v. Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 898, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 707; Matter of Collins v. Coughlin, 156 A.D.2d 793, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 707).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Torres v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 31, 1990
161 A.D.2d 1080 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Torres v. Coughlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RAFAEL TORRES, Petitioner, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, III, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 31, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 1080 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
557 N.Y.S.2d 636

Citing Cases

Matter of Williams v. Coughlin

We begin with the well-settled proposition that "[a] prison disciplinary determination must be supported by…

Matter of Torres v. Coughlin

This will not suffice. Clearly, as the victim of the alleged assault, Pratt's testimony was relevant and…