Angevine v. Martuscello - Prison Disciplinary Rules Violation

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 5th, 2026

Detected March 5th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upheld a determination that an incarcerated individual violated prison disciplinary rules. The ruling confirms the findings of conspiracy to assault, violent conduct, gang involvement, and making threats, based on substantial evidence.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding an incarcerated individual, Jaquan Angevine, guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules. The charges stemmed from an investigation into a physical attack, with allegations including conspiracy to have an individual assaulted, violent conduct, gang involvement, and making threats, linked to Angevine's alleged role as a ranking Bloods "Gorilla Stone" gang member controlling phone usage and ordering the assault. The court found that the misbehavior report, supporting documentation, hearing testimony, and confidential information constituted substantial evidence to support the guilty findings.

This decision confirms the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. For regulated entities, particularly government agencies overseeing correctional facilities, this reinforces the importance of thorough documentation and evidence gathering in disciplinary proceedings. While no specific compliance deadline or penalty is detailed in this opinion beyond the affirmed disciplinary action, it underscores the legal standard for upholding such determinations and the potential consequences for inmates involved in gang-related violence and disciplinary infractions within correctional facilities.

What to do next

Review internal disciplinary procedures for adherence to substantial evidence standards.
Ensure documentation for disciplinary actions is comprehensive and includes all supporting evidence.
Reinforce training on handling cases involving gang activity and threats within correctional facilities.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Matter of Angevine v. Martuscello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01265
Docket Number: CV-25-1243
Opinion
Authorities (4)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Matter of Angevine v Martuscello (2026 NY Slip Op 01265)
| Matter of Angevine v Martuscello |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01265 |
| Decided on March 5, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided and Entered:March 5, 2026
CV-25-1243

*[1]In the Matter of Jaquan Angevine, Petitioner,

Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.**

Calendar Date:February 6, 2026
Before:Aarons, J.P., Fisher, McShan, Powers and Mackey, JJ.

Jaquan Angevine, Brooklyn, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondents.

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 Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an investigation into a physical attack on the victim by a group of incarcerated individuals, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with conspiring to have an incarcerated individual assaulted, engaging in violent conduct, gang involvement and making threats. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner is being tracked as a ranking Bloods "Gorilla Stone" gang member and, in furtherance of gang activities, controlled the phone use for incarcerated individuals in his dorm unit. The report indicates that petitioner had been threatening violence against the victim for continuing to use the phones without authorization or compensation to petitioner. Shortly before the attack, the report continues, petitioner met and conspired with five other incarcerated individuals, all identified as gang members, near the phones and that petitioner ordered those incarcerated individuals to carry out an assault on the victim while petitioner monitored the assault from the phone unit. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges and a penalty was imposed. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the detailed misbehavior report, supporting documentation, testimony at the hearing and confidential information constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Johansel v Annucci, 155 AD3d 1147, 1148 [3d Dept 2017]; Matter of Chandler v Annucci, 135 AD3d 1258, 1259 [3d Dept 2016]; Matter of Espinal v Fischer, 114 AD3d 978, 979 [3d Dept 2014]). Although petitioner denied the allegations and the victim testified that he was never threatened or involved in an altercation with petitioner regarding the phones, this information presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Smith v Annucci, 232 AD3d 1014, 1015 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Estrada v Annucci, 199 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2021]). As for petitioner's challenge to the confidential information, upon our review of such evidence, we are satisfied that there was sufficient information for the Hearing Officer to independently assess the reliability of the confidential information provided (see Matter of Thomas v Annucci, 237 AD3d 1323, 1324 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Johansel v Annucci, 155 AD3d at 1148).

Petitioner's contention that his constitutional right to due process was violated when the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision failed to comply with his Freedom of Information Law request is not properly before us, as the underlying petition seeks to annul the disciplinary determination*2. We do note, however, that petitioner received a copy of the hearing transcript attached to respondents' answer. Finally, petitioner's assertion that the penalty imposed was excessive is moot as he has served the penalty and has been released from state custody.

Aarons, J.P., Fisher, McShan, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.