IN THE MATTER OF IAN DAWES v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN III, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
83 N.Y.2d 597, 634 N.E.2d 938, 612 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1994).
May 3, 1994
3 No. 62 (1994 NY Int. 068)
Decided May 3, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
CIPARICK, J.:
At issue in this case is whether respondent- Commissioner possesses
the authority to reconsider a prior determination when requested to do
so by the petitioner-inmate. We conclude that respondent acted
properly in entertaining the supplementary appeal to petitioner's pro
se administrative appeal and in granting the relief requested therein.
I
In January 1991, petitioner, a prisoner in the Great Meadow
Correctional Facility, was charged in three separate misbehavior
reports with disobeying the facility rules prohibiting assault (two
counts) and refusing a direct order.
Petitioner was found guilty of all charges at a Tier III hearing and
received a penalty of 545 days in Special Housing with the loss of
privileges and recommended loss of good time credit for that period.
Petitioner filed an administrative appeal pursuant to 7 NYCRR 254.8.
He claimed, among other things, that he was denied the right to be
present at his hearing. The determination was reviewed and affirmed by
respondent on March 18, 1991. On March 21, 1991, respondent received a
letter denominated a "supplementary appeal" from John Charles,
Managing Attorney of the Albany office of Prisoners' Legal Services of
New York. The letter was dated March 18th and urged "consideration as
to the issue of Mr. Dawes' presence at the hearing." Mr. Charles
argued for reversal of the hearing determination on procedural
grounds, noting that petitioner's request for preservation of a
videotape had been denied and petitioner allegedly needed the tape to
prove that he had not refused to attend his hearing. The remedy sought
in the letter was a new hearing.
SNIPPETS:
At issue in this case is whether respondent- Commissioner possesses the authority to
We conclude that respondent acted properly in entertaining the supplementary appeal to
In January 1991, petitioner, a prisoner in the Great Meadow Correctional Facility, was
Petitioner was found guilty of all charges at a Tier III hearing and received a penalty of
On March 21, 1991, respondent received a letter denominated a "supplementary appeal" from
Mr. Charles argued for reversal of the hearing determination on procedural grounds, noting
The remedy sought in the letter was a new hearing.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging respondent's determination and the March 25,
Supreme Court, initially unaware of respondent's March 18, 1991 determination, dismissed the
Supreme Court granted petitioner's motion, vacated its prior decision and judgment dismissing
petitioner was entitled to expungement in light of respondent's denial of petitioner's
"Respondent, in administratively reversing the determination, effectively found that
Given these facts, we agree with Supreme Court's finding that expungement was the proper
In the absence of statutory or regulatory guidance, respondent is entitled to exercise some
Respondent should not be discouraged from entertaining attorney requests to supplement pro se
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur.
|
