From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haynes v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Apr 27, 2018
160 A.D.3d 1468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

498 CA 17–00593

04-27-2018

In the Matter of Theodore HAYNES, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Anthony ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent–Respondent.

WYOMING COUNTY–ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.


WYOMING COUNTY–ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Memorandum:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, that he violated various inmate rules. We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in dismissing his petition. As respondent correctly concedes, the Hearing Officer erroneously refused to consider evidence of petitioner's mental condition. "When an inmate's mental state or intellectual capacity is at issue, a hearing officer shall consider evidence regarding the inmate's mental condition or intellectual capacity at the time of the incident and at the time of the hearing in accordance with this section" ( 7 NYCRR 254.6 [b] ). An inmate's mental state is deemed to be at issue where, as here, "the hearing was delayed or adjourned, after an extension of time was obtained ..., because the inmate became an inpatient" at the Central New York Psychiatric Center ( 7 NYCRR 254.6 [b][1][viii] ). Because nearly three years have passed since the incident, "underscor[ing] the difficulty of insuring a due process hearing to [petitioner] at this time," and petitioner has already served the period of confinement in the special housing unit that was imposed as part of the penalty, remittal for a new hearing is unwarranted ( Matter of Justice v. Smith , 69 A.D.2d 1018, 1018, 415 N.Y.S.2d 1023 [4th Dept. 1979] ). We therefore grant the petition by annulling the determination finding that he violated the inmate rules, and we direct respondent to expunge from his institutional record all references to those violations.

In light of our determination, we need not consider petitioner's remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is granted, the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rules 100.11 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][1] [ii] ), 104.11 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][5][ii] ), 104.13 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][5] [iv] ), 106.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][7][i] ), 107.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][8] [i] ), and 113.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][14][i] ) is annulled, and respondent is directed to expunge from petitioner's institutional record all references to the violation of those inmate rules.


Summaries of

Haynes v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Apr 27, 2018
160 A.D.3d 1468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Haynes v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Theodore HAYNES, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Anthony…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 27, 2018

Citations

160 A.D.3d 1468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 3008
72 N.Y.S.3d 889