Cooks v. Prack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooks v. Prack

87 A.D.3d 1199, 929 N.Y.2d 502

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1199 (Cooks v. Prack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cooks v. Prack, 87 A.D.3d 1199, 929 N.Y.2d 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1200]*1200Petitioner, a prison inmate, was served with a misbehavior report charging him with possession of a weapon after a sharpened plexiglass shank was allegedly discovered under his mattress during a cell frisk. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, during which petitioner requested and was denied a copy of Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4910, he was found guilty of the charge. When that determination was affirmed administratively, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Because the hearing officer improperly denied petitioner’s request for a relevant document, we annul the determination. Respondent concedes that the hearing officer erred in denying petitioner’s request for a copy of Directive No. 4910, which outlines the proper techniques for conducting a cell search, including the requirement that, when an inmate is removed from the cell prior to the search, he or she shall be placed outside the immediate area and allowed to observe the search (see Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4910 [V] [C] [1]). Because the record indicates that petitioner may have been removed from the immediate area and not allowed to observe the search and, thus, the requested document could have been relevant to formulating his defense, we find that the determination must be annulled (see Matter of Caldwell v Goord, 34 AD3d 1173,1174 [2006]; Matter of Mitchell v Goord, 28 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2006]). Inasmuch as the determination was otherwise supported by substantial evidence, the proper remedy is remittal for a new hearing (see Matter of Mitchell v Goord, 28 AD3d at 1040; Matter of Hillard v Coughlin, 187 AD2d 136, 140 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 651 [1993]).

Peters, J.P, Spain, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to the Commissioner of Correctional Services for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1200]*1200Petitioner, a prison inmate, was served with a misbehavior report charging him with possession of a weapon after a sharpened plexiglass shank was allegedly discovered under his mattress during a cell frisk. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, during which petitioner requested and was denied a copy of Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4910, he was found guilty of the charge. When that determination was affirmed administratively, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Because the hearing officer improperly denied petitioner’s request for a relevant document, we annul the determination. Respondent concedes that the hearing officer erred in denying petitioner’s request for a copy of Directive No. 4910, which outlines the proper techniques for conducting a cell search, including the requirement that, when an inmate is removed from the cell prior to the search, he or she shall be placed outside the immediate area and allowed to observe the search (see Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4910 [V] [C] [1]). Because the record indicates that petitioner may have been removed from the immediate area and not allowed to observe the search and, thus, the requested document could have been relevant to formulating his defense, we find that the determination must be annulled (see Matter of Caldwell v Goord, 34 AD3d 1173,1174 [2006]; Matter of Mitchell v Goord, 28 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2006]). Inasmuch as the determination was otherwise supported by substantial evidence, the proper remedy is remittal for a new hearing (see Matter of Mitchell v Goord, 28 AD3d at 1040; Matter of Hillard v Coughlin, 187 AD2d 136, 140 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 651 [1993]).

Peters, J.P, Spain, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to the Commissioner of Correctional Services for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 1199, 929 N.Y.2d 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooks-v-prack-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack