Harris v. Annucci, 148 A.D.3d 1385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Harris v. Annucci, 148 A.D.3d 1385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Mojica v. Keyser (nyappdiv, 2022-03-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Mojica v. Keyser
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
The authoring correction officer, however, described the subtle differences between the two sets of sneakers and, in any event, the conflict in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]; Matter of Wigfall v Goord , 53 AD3d 943, 943 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Carbuccia v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The first misbehavior report, hearing testimony and associated documentation, as well as the confidential testimony and documentation considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination with regard to the remaining charges for which petitioner was found guilty ( see Matter of Degraffenreid v Venettozzi , 178 AD3d 1229 , 1229-1230 [2019]; Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Degraffenreid v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
As to the remaining charge of making threats, the misbehavior report and testimony from its author, the sergeant who conducted the investigation and interviewed the inmate, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ballard v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
The record does not contain a signed witness refusal form and, at the hearing, when the Hearing Officer advised petitioner that the inmate "did not agree to testify," petitioner replied "okay." As petitioner failed to thereafter object or demand further inquiry into the basis for the inmate's refusal to testify, petitioner's claim that he was unlawfully denied his right to call witnesses is unpreserved for our review ( see Matter of Ayuso v Venettozzi , 159 AD3d 1208 , 1209 [2018]; Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385-1386 [2017]; cf. Matter of Henry v Fischer , 28 NY3d 1135, 1137-…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Gulifield v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
We find, however, that the detailed misbehavior report, which summarized the results of the investigation and set forth the specific rule violations, was sufficiently detailed to afford petitioner notice of the charges so as to enable him to prepare a defense ( see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]; Matter of Hyatt v Annucci , 137 AD3d 1382, 1382 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 910 [2016]; Matter of Chandler v Annucci , 135 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ortiz v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Supreme Court dismissed the petition. [FN1] Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, the hearing testimony of its author and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera provide substantial evidence supporting the finding of guilt ( see Matter of Mendez v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2017]; Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ballard v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
The hearing record form lists the inmate as petitioner's requested witness and, next to his name, notes only that he "refused." While petitioner did not, at the hearing, request that the inmate be called to testify or demand that there be a further inquiry into his refusal ( see Matter of Ayuso v Venettozzi , 159 AD3d 1208 , 1209 [2018]; Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385-1386 [2017]), the record does not reflect that petitioner was ever advised of his constitutional or regulatory right to call witnesses at the hearing ( see Matter of Tolden v Coughlin , 90 AD2d 929 , 930 [1982],…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ayuso v. Venettozzi (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Contrary to his claims, the correction officer testified consistently that she did not receive petitioner's grievance against her until a week after she wrote the misbehavior report and, moreover, she [*2]denied that she wrote such report in retaliation for that grievance, all matters of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]; Matter of Campos v Prack , 143 AD3d at 1021 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Caraway v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
The testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses that petitioner never threatened the correction officer presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Ramos v Annucci , 150 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2017]; Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Cruz v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the specific rule violations referenced in the misbehavior report and the corresponding description of the incident were sufficient to place him on notice of the charges against him (see Matter of Harris v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]; Matter of Legeros v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Pagan v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Turning to petitioner’s procedural contentions, we find that the misbehavior report, which alleged, among other things, the particulars of the incident and the time, location and date on which it occurred, was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charges and to allow him to prepare a meaningful defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Harris v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Rasheem S. Harris
v.
Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 16, 2017.
148 A.D.3d 1385
Aarons, Devine, Lynch, Mulvey, Rose.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

An investigation revealed that petitioner, a prison inmate, had demanded payment from other inmates who wanted to use the facility’s phone and threatened those who refused. Petitioner was accordingly charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduct, making threats and extortion. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. That determination was upheld on administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, hearing testimony, including the testimony from the sergeant who conducted the investigation and authored the misbehavior report, and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Al-Matin v Prack, 131 AD3d 1293, 1293 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 913 [2015]; Matter of Hayward v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2012]). Any conflicts between that proof and the testimony of petitioner and several other inmate witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Ortiz v Prack, 134 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2015]; Matter of Adams v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1269, 1270 [2014]).

Turning to petitioner’s procedural contentions, we find that the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to provide him with adequate notice of the charges so as to enable him to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [1], [4]; Matter of Austin v Annucci, 145 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2016]; Matter of Bailey v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2016]). To the extent that petitioner identified three “potential” inmate witnesses prior to the hearing and avers that neither the employee assistant nor the Hearing Officer obtained the reasons for why they refused to testify (see generally 7 NYCRR 251-4.2; Matter of Rivera v [*1386] Prack, 122 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2014]), petitioner neither requested at the hearing that these witnesses testify nor demanded further inquiry into their absence (see Matter of Gomez v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 147 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2017]; Matter of Torres v Annucci, 144 AD3d 1289, 1289 [2016] ; cf. Matter of Henry v Fischer, 28 NY3d 1135, 1138 [2016]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.

Lynch, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.