Matter of McPherson v. Hill

── Matter of McPherson v. Hill ── Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Matter of McPherson v Hill - 2026 NY Slip Op 03216 <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 McPherson v Hill</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03216</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Third Department</p> <p>Garry, P.J.</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 Oswald McPherson, Petitioner,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Superintendent Hill, as Superintendent of Wyoming Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered:May 21, 2026</p> <p>CV-25-1805</p> <p>Calendar Date: April 17, 2026</p> <p>Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Powers And Corcoran, JJ.</p> <div> <p>Oswald McPherson, Attica, petitioner pro se.</p> <p>Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Garry, P.J.</p> <p>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 Superintendent of Wyoming Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.</p> <p>Petitioner, an incarcerated individual, was charged in a misbehavior report with violent conduct and creating a disturbance. The accounts of the subject incident offered by petitioner and the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report vary significantly in terms of the nature of petitioner's conduct and his intent, but both generally involve petitioner's interaction with other incarcerated individuals in a dayroom, during which petitioner either flipped or threw a chair while speaking loudly. Unable to obtain objective body-worn camera footage from the encounter, the Hearing Officer credited the version of events proffered by the correction officer in her report and at the ensuing tier II disciplinary hearing and found petitioner guilty as charged. The determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.</p> <p>Although analytically distinct, we view two of the issues raised by petitioner to be closely related: the denial of his request for body-worn camera footage and whether his determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. We begin by recognizing that a misbehavior report and the testimony of a correction officer may, in appropriate circumstances, serve as the evidentiary basis for a prison disciplinary determination (<i>see</i> <i>People ex rel. Vega v Smith</i>, 66 NY2d 130, 140 [1985]; <i>see also</i> <i>Matter of Foster v Coughlin</i>, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990];<i> Matter of Snyder v Annucci</i>, 188 AD3d 1346, 1347 [3d Dept 2020]). However, that principle presupposes that such proof is sufficiently reliable and probative when viewed in light of the record as a whole (<i>see</i> <i>People ex rel. Vega v Smith</i>, 66 NY2d at 139;<i> 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,</i> 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]; <i>Matter of Alvarado v Annucci</i>, 225 AD3d 978, 979 [3d Dept 2024