tier II hearing in New York

2024It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot ( see Matter of Free v Coombe , 234 AD2d 996, 996 [4th Dept 1996]).

2023It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot ( see Matter of Free v Coombe , 234 AD2d 996, 996 [4th Dept 1996]).

2023We 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]).

2013Contrary 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]).

2014Petitioner’s further contention that he was entitled to employee assistance in preparing his defense in this tier II hearing is without merit (see Matter of Vann v Costello, 285 AD2d 924, 924-925 [2001]; Matter of Booker v Rivera, 276 AD2d 985, 985 [2000]; see generally 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [b]).

2014Petitioner’s further contention that he was entitled to employee assistance in preparing his defense in this tier II hearing is without merit (see Matter of Vann v Costello, 285 AD2d 924, 924-925 [2001]; Matter of Booker v Rivera, 276 AD2d 985, 985 [2000]; see generally 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [b]).

2018It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed ( see Matter of Liner v Fisher , 96 AD3d 1416 , 1417 [4th Dept 2012]).

2016Petitioner pleaded guilty to violating inmate rule 107.11, and therefore his contention that the determination with respect to that rule is not supported by substantial evidence is without merit (see Matter of Liner v Fischer, 96 AD3d 1416, 1417 [2012]).

2014We reject petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer abused his discretion in denying petitioner’s request for assistance in light of the complexity of this matter (see generally 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [b]), particularly in the absence of any evidence of prejudice to petitioner from the lack of assistance (see Matter of Cliff v De Celle, 260 AD2d 812, 813-814 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 814 [1999]).

2001Petitioner was not entitled to employee assistance in the tier II hearing (see, Matter of Booker v Rivera, 276 AD2d 985 ) and we reject his claim that the matter was so complex that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to exercise the discretionary authority to provide assistance (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [b]), particularly in the absence of any evidence of prejudice to petitioner from the lack of assistance (see, Matter of Cliff v De Celle, 260 AD2d 812 , lv denied 93 NY2d 814 ).

2014Petitioner’s further contention that he was entitled to employee assistance in preparing his defense in this tier II hearing is without merit (see Matter of Vann v Costello, 285 AD2d 924, 924-925 [2001]; Matter of Booker v Rivera, 276 AD2d 985, 985 [2000]; see generally 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [b]).

2014Petitioner’s further contention that he was entitled to employee assistance in preparing his defense in this tier II hearing is without merit (see Matter of Vann v Costello, 285 AD2d 924, 924-925 [2001]; Matter of Booker v Rivera, 276 AD2d 985, 985 [2000]; see generally 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [b]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the record does not support his assertion that the Hearing Officer at the tier II hearing engaged in improper off-the-record conversations or “was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 98 AD3d 766, 768 [2012]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the record does not support his assertion that the Hearing Officer at the tier II hearing engaged in improper off-the-record conversations or “was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 98 AD3d 766, 768 [2012]).

2013Although petitioner contends that his request at the tier III hearing for, among other things, a copy of the documentation and procedures used in the Albany Central Office for selecting inmates for random urinalysis tests was improperly denied, under the circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the ruling that such information — including any information specifically pertaining to him — was unavailable to inmates (see Matter of Weatherly v Goord, 268 AD2d 642, 643 [2000]). * Finally, petitioner’s “request for declaratory relief ... is not authorized by CPLR 7804 (g)” (Nunez v La Valley, 95 A

2013Although petitioner contends that his request at the tier III hearing for, among other things, a copy of the documentation and procedures used in the Albany Central Office for selecting inmates for random urinalysis tests was improperly denied, under the circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the ruling that such information — including any information specifically pertaining to him — was unavailable to inmates (see Matter of Weatherly v Goord, 268 AD2d 642, 643 [2000]). * Finally, petitioner’s “request for declaratory relief ... is not authorized by CPLR 7804 (g)” (Nunez v La Valley, 95 A

2026Because the loss of privileges that resulted from petitioner's guilty finding in this tier II hearing did not "impose[ ] atypical and significant hardship on [petitioner] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life" ( Sandin v Conner , 515 US 472, 484 [1995]), remittal for a new hearing is the appropriate remedy for this violation of petitioner's regulatory right to call a witness ( see Matter of Joseph v LaClair , 112 AD3d 1023 , 1024 [3d Dept 2013]).

1999In view of the relatively insubstantial nature of the potential deprivation facing a tier II inmate — which does not involve imposition of “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” (Sandin v Conner, 515 US 472, 484 ) — the inmate’s due process rights are not implicated by denying him or her an assistant.

2021It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed ( see Matter of King v Venettozzi , 152 AD3d 1115, 1116-1117 [3d Dept 2017]).

2010To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the tier II hearing, it is well established that inmates have no constitutional or statutory rights to their prior housing or programming status (see Matter of Mercer v Artus, 70 AD3d 1073, 1073 [2010]).

2005The misbehavior report, together with the corroborating testimony of its author, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Goncalves v Donnelly, 9 AD3d 721 [2004]; Matter of Lynch v Goord, 285 AD2d 878, 879 [2001] ).

2005Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for objections made at the tier II hearing created a credibility issue for the tier III Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Rizzuto v Sullivan, 295 AD2d 780, 781 [2002] ; Matter of Perkins v Goord, 290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]).

2005Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for objections made at the tier II hearing created a credibility issue for the tier III Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Rizzuto v Sullivan, 295 AD2d 780, 781 [2002] ; Matter of Perkins v Goord, 290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]).

2003Accordingly, petitioner’s fundamental due process right to be present at the tier II hearing was violated, requiring expungement (see Matter of Hakeem v Coombe, 233 AD2d 805, 806 [1996]; Matter of Weiss v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 638, 639-640 [1993]).

2003Accordingly, petitioner’s fundamental due process right to be present at the tier II hearing was violated, requiring expungement (see Matter of Hakeem v Coombe, 233 AD2d 805, 806 [1996]; Matter of Weiss v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 638, 639-640 [1993]).