Matter of Hill v. Bradford

── Matter of Hill v. Bradford ── Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Matter of Hill v Bradford - 2026 NY Slip Op 03215 <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Matter of Hill v Bradford</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03215</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Third Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>In the Matter of Christian Hill, Petitioner,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Dennis Bradford, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered:May 21, 2026</p> <p>CV-25-1557</p> <p>Calendar Date: April 17, 2026</p> <p>Before: Garry, P.J., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Mcshan And Ryba, JJ.</p> <div> <p>Christian Hill, Port Ewen, petitioner pro se.</p> <p>Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review two determinations of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.</p> <p>Petitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with violating multiple prison disciplinary rules. The first misbehavior report charged petitioner with, among other things, creating a disturbance, refusing a direct order and a movement regulation violation. According to the first misbehavior report, when petitioner returned to his housing block after dinner, he refused multiple direct orders from a correction officer to provide his cell number so that he could be locked in his cell, requiring that petitioner remain in the gallery gate area until the correction officer could finish placing other incarcerated individuals in their cells. The first misbehavior report indicated that, while waiting in the gallery gate area, petitioner yelled comments about the correction officer and continued to yell as he was eventually escorted down the gallery and locked in his cell. A second misbehavior report, charging violations of various disciplinary rules, alleged that petitioner, the day after the first misbehavior report was issued, again refused to provide his cell location to the correction officer upon returning to the gallery.</p> <p>Following separate tier II disciplinary hearings, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order, creating a disturbance and a movement regulation violation in connection with the first misbehavior report, and guilty of harassment in relation to the second misbehavior report. A discretionary review of the determinations resulted in no changes.^FN1 This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.</p> <p>Initially, the Attorney General has advised this Court that the finding that petitioner was guilty of harassment in connection with the second misbehavior report has since been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge returned to petitioner's account. As petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled with regar