At page 615 Resolving credibility issues in disciplinary hearings8 citing casespants pocket. As the officer was unwrapping the packet, petitioner knocked him back against the wall, grabbed the packet and swallowed it. Substantial evidence…
- Reynoso v. Fischer, 73 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010).publishedPetitioner’s contrary claim that the incident was fabricated to cover up an assault by correction officers upon him in retaliation for a grievance filed by petitioner presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Ma…
- Rodriguez v. Selsky, 47 A.D.3d 1173 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).publishedThe determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report, together with the corroborating hearing testimony from the correction officer who authored it (see Matter of Shakur v Smith, 34 AD3d 898…
- Modlenaar v. Goord, 21 A.D.3d 1190 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedPetitioner’s contention that he was innocent of the charges presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Williams v Goord, 308 AD2d 614, 615 [2003]).
- Fletcher v. Goord, 16 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).publishedTo the extent that this inmate gave testimony that differed from the searching officer’s version of events, a credibility issue was presented which the Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve against petitioner (see Matter of Williams v Go…
- Spulka v. Goord, 12 A.D.3d 1004 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedContrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and corroborating testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Williams v Goord, 308 AD2d 614, 615 [2003]), despite t…
- Roman v. Goord, 11 A.D.3d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedNotwithstanding petitioner’s contention to the contrary, the detailed misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Williams v Goord, 308 AD2d 614, 615 [20…
- Perez v. Goord, 6 A.D.3d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedAlthough petitioner maintains that he did not assault the correction officer but, rather, was attacked by a group of correction officers in retaliation for filing grievances, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to reso…
- Claudio v. Selsky, 4 A.D.3d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedIn this regard, petitioner’s assertion that the charges were fabricated in order to cover up the officers’ alleged unprovoked assault raised credibility issues that the Hearing Officer was free to resolve in an exercise of discretion (see…
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 was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from assaulting a staff member, engaging in violent conduct, refusing to obey a direct order, interfering with a staff member, possessing an altered item, possessing contraband, smuggling and refusing to comply with search and frisk procedures. The misbehavior report relates that a random frisk of petitioner’s cell disclosed three pieces of sandpaper, two pieces from a disassembled pair of nail clippers, a length of modified television cable, a bare copper wire, a toothbrush with a melted handle, several pairs of disposable gloves and two pairs of state-issued work gloves. Upon petitioner’s return to his cell, the reporting correction officer conducted a pat frisk, finding a cellophane packet in petitioner’s[*615] pants pocket. As the officer was unwrapping the packet, petitioner knocked him back against the wall, grabbed the packet and swallowed it.
Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt of the charged misconduct was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the detailed misbehavior report and the corroborating testimony given by the reporting correction officer who witnessed the conduct in question (see Matter of McCants v Murphy, 301 AD2d 713, 714 [2003]; Matter of McKins v James, 285 AD2d 889, 890 [2001]). Petitioner’s testimony, wherein he asserted that the charged acts of misconduct never occurred but were fabricated by the reporting correction officer to cover up his unprovoked assault on petitioner, raised issues of credibility that lay within the discretionary power of the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Rushing v Goord, 298 AD2d 782, 783 [2002]).
Petitioner’s assertion that the disciplinary hearing was vitiated by hearing officer bias is unsupported by any showing that the administrative proceedings were conducted in other than a fair and impartial manner (see Matter of Cendales v Goord, 305 AD2d 824, 824 [2003]). The remaining arguments raised herein, including the contention that various procedural irregularities deprived petitioner of a fair hearing, have been examined and found to be without merit.
Peters, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.