130 Misc. 2d 1016 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1986
OPINION OF THE COURT
The petitioner seeks an order reversing and annulling the disposition of a superintendent’s proceeding held at the Clinton Correctional Facility, and requiring that all references to said proceeding and the records upon which it is based be expunged from petitioner’s institutional and departmental files. The petition is, in all respects, opposed.
The facts which gave rise to this action are not in dispute. The petitioner is an inmate at the Clinton Correctional Facility. On the evening of February 25, 1985, petitioner positioned himself under his bed and began screaming. Correctional Officer F. J. Rybaczyk ordered the petitioner to stop screaming, and thereafter quietus followed with intermittent outbursts of screaming by petitioner throughout the night. A misbehavior report was issued charging petitioner with the rule violations of failure to obey an order and disturbing the order of the facility. On the morning of February 26, 1985, approximately eight to nine hours after the first report was
The tier III hearing on all charges was held on April 19, 1985. The hearing officer dismissed the charges of refusing to obey a direct order and disturbing the order of the facility, because of the information supplied by the mental health satellite unit which indicated that petitioner’s deteriorating mental health was a causal factor. The more serious charges of assault and destroying State property were affirmed in order to discourage such behavior.
This court determines that the guilty finding of the hearing officer on the more serious charges is inconsistent with the not guilty finding of the less serious charges, and must be set aside. From an examination of the hospital notes, it is apparent that any determination by the mental health unit that the petitioner’s lack of mental health was a causal factor in his misbehavior should apply equally to all charges. The petitioner may not be adjudged rational in regard to the second set of charges merely because the acts allegedly committed were of a more serious nature, requiring discouragement.
The court has examined the remaining contentions of the