At page 860 Reviewing disciplinary violations and credibility determinations11 citing casesProceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of…
- Connelly v. Griffin, 101 A.D.3d 1211 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).published This testimony, together with the misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Roncini v Goord, 18 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2005]; Matter of Jamison v Goord, 8 AD3d 860, 860 [2004]).
- Cicio v. Fischer, 100 A.D.3d 1226 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012).published The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who authored it, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Galdamez v Taylor, 31 AD3d 934, 934 [2006]; Matter of Jamison…
- Lamage v. Bezio, 74 A.D.3d 1676 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010).publishedAs for the disciplinary determination, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony given by correction officials at the disciplinary hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matt…
- Newsome v. Selsky, 26 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006).publishedContrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who placed petitioner in restraints following the outburst, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (s…
- Campisi v. Goord, 23 A.D.3d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedSubstantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony, supports the determination of guilt (see Matter of Roncini v Goord, 18 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2005]; Matter of Jamison v Goord, 8 AD3d 860, 860 [2004]).
- Porter v. McGinnis, 20 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedPetitioner’s defense of retaliation presented a question of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jamison v Goord, 8 AD3d 860, 860 [2004]).
- Loper v. Greene, 19 A.D.3d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedPetitioner’s claim of retaliation presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jamison v Goord, 8 AD3d 860, 860 [2004]; Matter of Salaam v Goord, 8 AD3d 776, 777 [2004]).
- Brown v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedHis claim of retaliation presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jamison v Goord, 8 AD3d 860, 860 [2004]).
- Boddie v. Selsky, 18 A.D.3d 996 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedPetitioner’s assertion that the officer who wrote the misbehavior report did so in retaliation for petitioner having spoken with the sergeant presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jamison v Goo…
Other citing cases
- Hill v. Selsky, 19 A.D.3d 64 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).published
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit disobeying a direct order, harassment, creating a disturbance and making threats.* According to the misbehavior report, petitioner returned from the commissary and ignored a correction officer’s request to produce his commissary receipt. In the presence of other inmates, petitioner began yelling and threatening the correction officer until a sergeant arrived in response to the correction officer’s request for assistance. The misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Pryce v Goord, 281 AD2d 665 [2001]). Petitioner’s defense of harassment and retaliation on the part of the correction officer created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see id.).
Turning to petitioner’s procedural claims, we are unpersuaded by the contention that he was denied the right to call various witnesses. The record establishes that the testimony sought from Captain Richards was irrelevant to the charges contained in the misbehavior report. With respect to petitioner’s request for an inmate witness, the Hearing Officer personally spoke with and ascertained the reasons for the inmate’s refusal to testify (see Matter of Beckford v Coughlin, 210 AD2d 775 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 807 [1995]) and, absent any prejudice to petitioner, “the failure to provide petitioner with a written refusal form is harmless error” (Matter of Shannon v Goord, 282 AD2d 909, 910 [2001]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
[*861] Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Petitioner also was charged with, but found not guilty of, making a false statement.