green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v… ↗
Issue: prison disciplinary ruleNY ↗
Issue: tier III disciplinary hearingNY ↗
Issue: testimony adduced hearingNY ↗
Issue: tier II disciplinary hearingNY ↗
46.5 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, last quoted 2011↓ Fading ·
…sufficiently relevant and probative
at p. 966
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Derby v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the determination that he violated that rule by possessing cellophane ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Livingston v Annucci , 222 AD3d 1391, 1392 [4th Dept 2023]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Livingston v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, "to/from memorandum," and testimony at the hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the determination that he violated those rules ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Edwards v Annucci , 199 AD3d 1433 , 1433 [4th Dept 2021]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Johnson v. Eckert
We reject petitioner's contention that the determination that he violated inmate rule 106.10 is not supported by substantial evidence ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Johnson v. Eckert
Petitioner's testimony merely presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Edwards v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, hearing testimony, and confidential information constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that he violated those inmate rules ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Watson v Annucci , 173 AD3d 1606 , 1606 [4th Dept 2019]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Hill v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination finding that he violated the inmate rules is supported by substantial evidence ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Thomas v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that he violated those inmate rules ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 162 AD3d 1530 , 1531 [4th Dept 2018]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Cuppuccino v. Harper
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated that inmate rule ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Clark v Annucci , 170 AD3d 1499 , 1499 [4th Dept 2019]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Hinspeter v. Annucci
We reject petitioner's additional contention that the determination that he violated inmate rule 116.11 is not supported by substantial evidence ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Cushman v. Venettozzi
Petitioner's denials of the reported misbehavior raised, at most, an issue of credibility for resolution by the hearing officer ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ayuso v. Graham
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and the testimony of a civilian employee of the correctional facility with personal knowledge of the facts provide substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated those inmate rules ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Lago v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination finding that he violated rules 103.10 and 107.20 is supported by substantial evidence ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Anselmo v. Annucci
Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Rogers v Annucci , 167 AD3d 1137 , 1138 [2018]; Matter of Adams v Fischer , 116 AD3d 1269, 1270 [2014]; Matter of Cunningham v Coughlin , 97 AD2d 930, 931 [1983]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Henderson v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the second determination, dated January 25, 2018, which as modified by an administrative order dated March 6, 2018, found that he violated inmate rules 180.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [ii] [facility correspondence violation]) and 107.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii] [harassment]), is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Porter v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination finding that he violated rule 100.10 is supported by substantial evidence ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Viera v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, the testimony of the author of that report, and the photograph of the property constitute substantial evidence to support the determination that he violated that inmate rule ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clark v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior reports, hearing testimony, documentary evidence, and video evidence constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated the applicable inmate rules ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Jones v Annucci , 141 AD3d 1108, 1108-1109 [4th Dept 2016]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Baxter v. Annucci
Petitioner's denial of the reported misbehavior raised, at most, an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of DiStefano v. Annucci
Petitioner's denial of the reported misbehavior merely raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Caldara v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination that he violated inmate rules 107.20 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [iii] [lying]) and 119.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [20] [i] [false alarm]) is supported by substantial evidence ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ballard v. Kickbush
With respect to the first misbehavior report, any inconsistencies in the correction officer's description of the incident in that report presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Knight v. Colvin
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, the testimony of the author of that report, and the testimony of other witnesses at the administrative hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the charges ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Williams v. Annucci
The testimony of the correction officers at the hearing and the misbehavior report constitute substantial evidence that petitioner was guilty of violating the subject inmate rules ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Cordova v. Annucci
Vega v Smith , 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]), i.e., the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of its author, which established that petitioner approached the victim from behind and cut him and that, immediately after the incident, the victim identified petitioner as the assailant ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Rudolph v. Annucci
The testimony of petitioner and the other inmates who testified at the hearing merely raised credibility issues that the Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve against petitioner (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Heath v Walker, 255 AD2d 1006 , 1006 [4th Dept 1998]), as did the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the correction officer who witnessed the incident (see Matter of Headley v Annucci, 150 AD3d 1513, 1514 [3d Dept 2017]; see also Matter of Griffin v Goord, 266 AD2d 830, 830 [4th Dept 1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Inesti v. Rizzo
In any event, we conclude that the misbehavior report, video recording of the incident, confidential testimony, and petitioner’s admission that he committed the acts underlying the charges constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt of all of the rule violations (see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Vega, 66 NY2d at 140 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Wilson v. Annucci
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
With respect to the remaining two inmate rules, the misbehavior report and the testimony of its author constitute substantial evidence that petitioner violated them (see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Vega, 66 NY2d at 140 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Adams v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
The Hearing Officer resolved the discrepancy in favor of the person identified in the chain of custody report, and we “perceive no basis in the record to disturb the Hearing Officer’s resolution of th[at] issue [ ]” (Matter of Dash v Goord, 255 AD2d 978 , 978 [1998], citing Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ingram v. Annucci
Any denials by *1779 petitioner with respect to those two violations raised, at most, an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Vargas v. Annucci
We find that the misbehavior report, supporting documentation, testimony at the hearing, particularly that of the nurse based upon her experience, examination and observation of petitioner, are “sufficiently relevant and probative . . . to constitute substantial evidence” of petitioner’s guilt (Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Panek v Goord, 23 AD3d 966, 967 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]; Matter of Eckert v Selsky, 247 AD2d 728, 729 [1998]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Walton v. Colvin
Petitioner’s denials of the reported misbehavior presented only an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gray v. Annucci
Petitioner’s testimony that he complied with all direct orders merely raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gray v. Annucci
Petitioner’s testimony that he complied with all direct orders merely raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Annucci
Petitioner’s denials of the reported misbehavior raised, at most, an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Annucci
Petitioner’s denials of the reported misbehavior raised, at most, an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Medina v. Fischer
Petitioner’s denials of the reported misbehavior raised, at most, an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Medina v. Fischer
Petitioner’s denials of the reported misbehavior raised, at most, an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Commissioner of DOCS
The detailed misbehavior reports and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of McKinley v Goord, 40 AD3d 1280, 1280 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Commissioner of DOCS
The detailed misbehavior reports and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of McKinley v Goord, 40 AD3d 1280, 1280 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MatterofRiveravCommissionerofDOCS
The detailed misbehavior reports and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of McKinley v Goord, 40 AD3d 1280, 1280 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [2007]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitley v. Miller
Johnson, 487 F.Supp.2d at 382 n. 1 (quoting Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964 , 563 N.Y.S.2d 728 , 565 N.E.2d 477, 478 (1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reid v. Saj
Petitioner’s contention that he owned the object that he was alleged to have stolen created, at most, a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reid v. Saj
Petitioner’s contention that he owned the object that he was alleged to have stolen created, at most, a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillips v. Lee
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the hearing officer’s determination that he was guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Harris v Kaplin, 102 AD3d 692, 692-693 [2013]; Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; Matter of Haynes v Bezio, 73 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2010]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884, 884-885 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillips v. Lee
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the hearing officer’s determination that he was guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Harris v Kaplin, 102 AD3d 692, 692-693 [2013]; Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; Matter of Haynes v Bezio, 73 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2010]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884, 884-885 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Freeman v. Fischer
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination that he violated inmate rule 109.12 is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Freeman v. Fischer
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination that he violated inmate rule 109.12 is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; People ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sabino v. Hulihan
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the author of that report constitute substantial evidence to support the charges (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sabino v. Hulihan
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the author of that report constitute substantial evidence to support the charges (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Britt v. Evans
The misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony of the correction officers, constituted substantial evidence that, inter alia, petitioner was in possession of escape items and a weapon (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Smith, 66 NY2d at 139 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of David Foster
v.
Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services
v.
Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 27, 1990.
565 N.E.2d 477
1990 N.Y. LEXIS 3491
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, James M. Bogin and David C. Leven for appellant., Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan, O. Peter Sherwood and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 479 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner, an inmate of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, was charged in a misbehavior report with assault and fighting in violation of prison disciplinary rules. The misbehavior report, dated the day after the incident, was prepared[*966] and signed by a correction officer who had not himself witnessed the events but, according to the petition, had obtained a statement from the victim. The report recited the full details of the incident, including time, place, circumstances, and the names of three participants (including petitioner), and it described both petitioner’s role in the attack and the victim’s injury — a cut over his left eye. At the disciplinary hearing, the victim denied the assault, denied that petitioner had anything to do with his injury, denied speaking to a correction officer about the incident, and further testified that the cut over his eye was the result of having tripped and hit his head "against the floor or the table.” Based on the misbehavior report and the victim’s testimony, petitioner was found guilty of both charges; the Hearing Officer explicitly rejected the victim’s recantation as incredible. Petitioner now asserts that the finding of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence because the author of the misbehavior report did not personally observe the incident.
A written misbehavior report can constitute substantial evidence of an inmate’s misconduct (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The focus of the court’s inquiry therefore is not on whether the evidence is hearsay, but on whether it is "sufficiently relevant and probative” (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, supra, at 140) to constitute substantial evidence. A misbehavior report may be made by an employee "who has observed the incident or who has ascertained the facts.” (7 NYCRR 251-1.4 [b].) Here, the misbehavior report was made by an employee who ascertained the facts from the victim just after the assault, and it contained a highly detailed account of the incident given at that time, including a description of the attack on him. The victim’s injury unquestionably occurred, and was observable. There was no evidence of any motive to implicate petitioner falsely. The victim’s later denials and explanations for the injury at the disciplinary hearing served only to present a credibility issue, which the Hearing Officer — having seen and heard the victim testify — resolved in favor of the statements made in the misbehavior report. In these circumstances, we conclude that the determination was supported by substantial evidence.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
Judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.