At page 623 Determining greater stress than similarly situated workers7 citing cases
- Guillo v. NYC Hous. Auth., 115 A.D.3d 1140 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published “Mental injuries caused by work-related stress are compensable if the claimant can show that the stress that caused the injury was ‘greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment’ ” (Mat…
- Claim of Cerda v. New York Racing Ass'n, 112 A.D.3d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013).published Therefore, notwithstanding proof in the record that could support a contrary result, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant did not suffer a compensable injury (see Matter of Veeder v New York State…
- Claim of Parrinello v. New York City Transit Auth., 47 A.D.3d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).publishedMindful of the Board’s discretion to weigh conflicting evidence and evaluate witness credibility (see Matter of Gropper v GPA Mech., 35 AD3d 947, 948 [2006]), we find that substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s determinati…
- Claim of Bottieri v. Travelers Ins., 309 A.D.2d 1100 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).publishedAs the record before us fails to reflect that the pressures encountered by claimant were any greater than those experienced by her peers during the time in question, the Board’s denial of her claim will not be disturbed (see Matter of Spen…
- Claim of Aubel v. Price Chopper, 307 A.D.2d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).publishedSince the Board’s resolution of these factual issues is supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Spencer v Time Warner Cable, supra at 623; Matter of Meyers v Teachers Coll.…
v.
Daniel A. Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner challenges a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of harassment, being out of place and engaging in conduct that disturbs the order of the facility.* The detailed misbehavior report, authored and endorsed by the correction officers involved in the incident, indicates that petitioner was found on an unauthorized court in the yard and became agitated when he was approached and ordered to come off the court. Petitioner then began making harassing statements which caused several inmates in the yard to stop what they were doing and take notice. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the misbehavior report and petitioner’s testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner’s misconduct (see, Matter of Watson v Morse, 260 AD2d 772; Matter of Rivera v Goord, 245 AD2d 910, 911). Any testimony presented on behalf of petitioner which conflicted with the version of events set forth in the misbehavior report presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Torres v Goord, 275 AD2d 840, 841).
Furthermore, the record fails to support petitioner’s assertion that his guilt was predetermined by virtue of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer. Moreover, the Hearing Officer appropriately considered petitioner’s prior disciplinary record in determining the penalty to be imposed (see generally, Matter of Green v Selsky, 257 AD2d 909, lv dismissed 93 NY2d 988). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Mercure, J. P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs.
Petitioner was also charged with, and found not guilty of, disobeying a direct order.