At page 778 Reviewing disciplinary findings based on evidence and testimony3 citing cases�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…
- Matter of Loret v. Venettozzi, 200 A.D.3d 1280 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021).publishedAs set forth by the Hearing Officer at the hearing and on the refusal forms, neither testimony from an incarcerated individual regarding his prior unrelated interaction with the correction officer nor the correction officer's disciplinary…
- Vega v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 92 A.D.3d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012).publishedPetitioner’s claims that he was improperly denied certain witnesses as well as documentation concerning the severity of the inmate’s injuries are unavailing inasmuch as they were redundant or irrelevant to the assault charge (see Matter of…
- Dukes v. Goord, 16 A.D.3d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedMoreover, petitioner was not improperly denied the opportunity to present the testimony of the physician who treated the victim but did not observe the assault, as his testimony was not relevant to the charge (see Matter of Caraway v Herbe…
At page 779 evant to the charges (see, Matter of Burse v Goord, 274 AD2d 678). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.…1 citing case
- Reyes v. Leclaire, 49 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).publishedThus, it was properly excluded by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Caraway v Herbert, 285 AD2d 778, 779 [2001]).
v.
Victor T. Herbert, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility
—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 Correctional Services 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 violent conduct, assaulting another inmate, possession of a weapon and disobeying a direct order. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner was seen leaving the victim’s cell with a three-inch weapon and ignored orders from a correction officer to stop. The victim was found to have suffered a three-inch cut on the side of his face. Notwithstanding the fact that no weapon was ever found, the detailed misbehavior report and testimony presented at the hearing, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Davis v Selsky, 270 AD2d 548; Matter of Cliff v De Celle, 260 AD2d 812, 813, lv denied 93 NY2d 814). Although the victim contradicted an earlier statement by testifying at the hearing that petitioner was not the one who cut him, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Primo v Goord, 266 AD2d 602).
We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s assertion that the hearing was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner because he was denied relevant documentary evidence and the right to call witnesses. The information sought by petitioner, including the extent of the victim’s injury, was either redundant or irrel[*779]evant to the charges (see, Matter of Burse v Goord, 274 AD2d 678). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P. J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.