At page 722 Review of prison disciplinary finding of guilt3 citing cases“We find that the misbehavior report coupled with the documentary evidence, including the letter sent to the President and petitioner’s writ”
- Hood v. Goord, 36 A.D.3d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).publishedNo expert witness testimony was required as hearing officers are permitted to independently assess handwriting samples (see Matter of Johnson v Coombe, 271 AD2d 780, 780-781 [2000]; Matter of Burgess v Goord, 269 AD2d 722, 722-723 [2000];…
- Alston v. Goord, 25 A.D.3d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006).publishedThe misbehavior report, together with the letter written by petitioner, as well as petitioner’s admission that he authored the letter, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Surdis v Walsh, 295…
- Chavis v. Goord, 8 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedTurning to the January 2003 determinations, which found petitioner guilty of displaying harassing and threatening conduct toward a facility nurse, we find that the misbehavior reports and petitioner’s own correspondence provide substantial…
At page 723 ing samples, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Goord, 261 AD2d 740, lv denied 93 NY2d 818). Furthermore, despite…2 citing cases
- Agosto v. Selsky, 39 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).publishedAlthough the documents were not compared by a handwriting expert, the Hearing Officer’s own analysis and his finding of sufficient similarities between the forged documents and petitioner’s handwriting samples are enough to sustain the det…
- Torres v. Goord, 306 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).publishedSubstantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented in the form of the misbehavior report, the confiscated letter, and the testimony of the correction officer who prepared the misbehavior report after finding the letter in petitioner’…
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the New York State Department 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, a prison inmate, was found guilty of making threats and violating facility correspondence procedures. The misbehavior report alleged that petitioner, using another inmate’s name, had sent a threatening letter to the President of the United States. Petitioner challenges the determination on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Adduced in evidence against petitioner at the hearing was the misbehavior report, along with photocopies of petitioner’s handwriting and the letter that was confiscated, bearing the name of an inmate as the return addressee who has never been imprisoned at petitioner’s facility. We find that the misbehavior report coupled with the documentary evidence, including the letter sent to the President and petitioner’s writ[*723]ing samples, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Goord, 261 AD2d 740, lv denied 93 NY2d 818). Furthermore, despite the fact that a handwriting expert did not compare petitioner’s handwriting samples with the letter, the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that the handwriting on both samples matched is sufficient (see, id.; Matter of Andrades v Selsky, 233 AD2d 649). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.