MATTER OF BARNES v. LeFevre

503 N.E.2d 1022, 69 N.Y.2d 649, 511 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21241
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 16, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by68 cases

This text of 503 N.E.2d 1022 (MATTER OF BARNES v. LeFevre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MATTER OF BARNES v. LeFevre, 503 N.E.2d 1022, 69 N.Y.2d 649, 511 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21241 (N.Y. 1986).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and under the circumstances of this case, the petition granted, *650 the determination of respondents annulled and respondents directed to expunge all references to the proceeding from petitioner’s file and to restore the good behavior allowance lost.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility, challenges the determination of an inmate disciplinary hearing on the ground that prison officials improperly denied his right to call witnesses (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5). During the course of his testimony, petitioner indicated that a certain inmate, whose name was unknown to him, might have witnessed the incident. The hearing was adjourned and the requested witness was located. The correction officer who had ascertained the identity of the witness reported to the hearing officer that the witness refused to testify. The record neither reflects any reason for the witness’ refusal nor any indication of any effort by the respondents to ascertain any reason. The fact of the refusal was made known to petitioner upon the recommencement of the hearing which concluded with a finding of petitioner’s guilt.

Under these circumstances, we conclude that respondents have impermissibly denied to petitioner his right to call witnesses in violation of their own regulations (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5). The hearsay report of a correction officer that a witness refuses to testify unaccompanied by any reason from the witness proffered to the hearing officer for such refusal is not a sufficient basis upon which an inmate’s conditional right to call witnesses can be summarily denied. Here, where the record does not reflect any reason for the witness’ refusal to testify, or that any inquiry was made of him as to why he refused or that the hearing officer communicated with the witness to verify his refusal to testify, there has been a denial of the inmate’s right to call witnesses as provided in the regulations.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Judgment reversed, without costs, petition granted, determination of respondents annulled and respondents directed to expunge all references to the proceeding from the petitioner’s file and restore the good behavior allowance lost, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of Bright v. Martuscello
2025 NY Slip Op 01538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Diaz v. Annucci
201 N.Y.S.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Ballard v. Annucci
2018 NY Slip Op 4625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Adams v. Annucci
2018 NY Slip Op 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Doleman v. Prack
145 A.D.3d 1289 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Rafael Cortorreal v. Anthony J. Annucci
64 N.E.3d 952 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
Matter of Hamlett v. Prack
139 A.D.3d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
The Matter of George Texeira v. Brian Fischer
43 N.E.3d 358 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
Matter of Figueroa v. Prack
131 A.D.3d 1311 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Broadie v. Annucci
131 A.D.3d 1324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
JOHNSON, LATIQUE v. PRACK, ALBERT
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Johnson v. Prack
122 A.D.3d 1323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Texeira v. Fischer
115 A.D.3d 1137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
ELDER, JARVIS v. FISCHER, BRIAN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Elder v. Fischer
115 A.D.3d 1177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Saez v. Fischer
113 A.D.3d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Sorrentino v. Fischer
106 A.D.3d 1309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Pitts v. Fischer
98 A.D.3d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Samuels v. Fischer
98 A.D.3d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Moye v. Fischer
93 A.D.3d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 N.E.2d 1022, 69 N.Y.2d 649, 511 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-barnes-v-lefevre-ny-1986.