From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Canty v. Fischer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2013
107 A.D.3d 1194 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-13

In the Matter of Moshe Cinque CANTY, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Moshe Cinque Canty, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


Moshe Cinque Canty, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order, harassment and participating in a demonstration as charged in a misbehavior report. On administrative appeal, the determination was modified by, among other things, dismissing all but the charge of harassment. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination.

We agree with petitioner that meaningful employee assistance was not provided in accordance with 7 NYCRR 251–4.2 in order for him to prepare a defense. Although petitioner requested that 19 potential inmate witnesses be interviewed, the record reveals no effort by the employee assistant to interview the potential inmate witnesses, who were not only identified but, according to the misbehavior report, were present during the alleged incident. The employee assistant should have interviewedthe witnesses and reported back to petitioner with the results of those efforts ( see7 NYCRR 251–4.2); moreover, the Hearing Officer made no attempt to remedy the inadequacies when petitioner raised the issue at the administrative hearing ( compare Matter of Alicea v. Fischer, 94 A.D.3d 1316, 1316, 942 N.Y.S.2d 690 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 809, 951 N.Y.S.2d 467, 975 N.E.2d 913 [2012];Matter of Lashway v. Fischer, 91 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 936 N.Y.S.2d 787 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 805, 948 N.Y.S.2d 579, 971 N.E.2d 861 [2012] ). The lack of adequate assistance prohibited petitioner's ability to adequately prepare a defense ( see Matter of Velasco v. Selsky, 211 A.D.2d 953, 954, 621 N.Y.S.2d 725 [1995];Matter of Hendricks v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Correctional Servs., 165 A.D.2d 923, 924, 560 N.Y.S.2d 534 [1990] ). Accordingly, the determination must be annulled.

ADJUDGED that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this matter from petitioner's institutional record.

LAHTINEN, J.P., SPAIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Canty v. Fischer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2013
107 A.D.3d 1194 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Canty v. Fischer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Moshe Cinque CANTY, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 13, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 1194 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
966 N.Y.S.2d 704
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4397

Citing Cases

Williams v. Fischer

In response, the Hearing Officer stated that he, in fact, had instructed the employee assistant not to speak…

Rupnarine v. Prack

However, we agree with petitioner's contention that he was denied adequate employee assistance. Specifically,…