Opinion
CV–22–2192
11-09-2023
In the Matter of Stoker OLUKOTUN–WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Lieutenant Gerald GARDNER et al., Respondents.
Stoker Olukotun–Williams, Wallkill, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Sean P. Mix of counsel), for respondents.
Stoker Olukotun–Williams, Wallkill, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Sean P. Mix of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, an incarcerated individual, was charged in a misbehavior report with a movement regulation violation, a phone program violation, creating a disturbance, refusing to obey a direct order and interfering with an employee. According to the report, while making a second phone call that day, petitioner refused several direct orders to get off the phone, continued to use the phone and yelled in a belligerent manner, drawing the attention of other incarcerated individuals in the area. Facility staff responded to the scene, and petitioner ultimately hung up the phone after being given several more direct orders. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. The misbehavior report, related evidence and hearing testimony, including the testimony of the correction officer sergeant who authored the misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][22][iii]; 7 NYCRR 723.5 [b][6]; cf. Matter of Toliver v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 107 A.D.3d 1263, 1263, 967 N.Y.S.2d 518 [3d Dept. 2013] ; Matter of Gallagher v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 96 A.D.3d 1319, 1320, 947 N.Y.S.2d 224 [3d Dept. 2012] ). "Turning to petitioner's procedural claims, although the hearing transcript contains inaudible portions, the gaps are not so substantial or significant as to preclude meaningful review of the procedural arguments advanced by petitioner" ( Matter of Smith v. Annucci, 217 A.D.3d 1306, 1306, 191 N.Y.S.3d 840 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Santos v. Annucci, 209 A.D.3d 1084, 1086, 175 N.Y.S.3d 616 [3d Dept. 2022] ). Further, "nothing in the record suggests – as petitioner now claims – that the Hearing Officer failed to electronically record the entire hearing as required by 7 NYCRR 254.6(a)(2)" ( Matter of Liggan v. Annucci, 171 A.D.3d 1325, 1326, 97 N.Y.S.3d 805 [3d Dept. 2019] ; see Matter of Partak v. Venettozzi, 175 A.D.3d 1633, 1635, 109 N.Y.S.3d 481 [3d Dept. 2019] ).
"As to the remaining procedural challenges, petitioner was not improperly denied documentary evidence in the form of certain videotapes that he requested, given that the requested videotapes either did not exist or did not depict the incident in question and were, therefore, irrelevant" ( Matter of Matthews v. Annucci, 175 A.D.3d 1713, 1714, 108 N.Y.S.3d 217 [3d Dept. 2019] [citations omitted]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that he was not denied the right to call certain witnesses, as the testimony offered by petitioner's requested witnesses would have been irrelevant and/or redundant (see Matter of Johnson v. Annucci, 205 A.D.3d 1173, 1174–1175, 165 N.Y.S.3d 925 [3d Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Snyder v. Annucci, 188 A.D.3d 1346, 1347, 136 N.Y.S.3d 170 [3d Dept. 2020] ). "Finally, petitioner's challenge to his prehearing confinement was rendered moot by the final determination" ( Matter of Hill v. Annucci, 155 A.D.3d 1195, 1197, 64 N.Y.S.3d 384 [3d Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Ballard v. Annucci, 156 A.D.3d 1013, 1015, 66 N.Y.S.3d 84 [3d Dept. 2017] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim that the Hearing Officer exhibited bias, have been considered and are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.