testimony adduced hearing in New York

2014The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Somerville v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]).

2014The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Somerville v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]).

2013Petitioner’s denial of any misconduct and claim that he is Spanish speaking and did not understand the assistant’s directives presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Mungo v Director of Special Hous. & Inmate Disciplinary Programs, 93 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2012], appeal dismissed 19 NY3d 919 [2012]; Matter of Garcia v Bertone, 91 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2012]).

2013Petitioner’s denial of any misconduct and claim that he is Spanish speaking and did not understand the assistant’s directives presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Mungo v Director of Special Hous. & Inmate Disciplinary Programs, 93 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2012], appeal dismissed 19 NY3d 919 [2012]; Matter of Garcia v Bertone, 91 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission to engaging in the conduct in question, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]; Matter of Lopez v Fischer, 91 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission to engaging in the conduct in question, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]; Matter of Lopez v Fischer, 91 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2012]).

2011The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation and the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 81 AD3d 1018 [2011]; Matter of Frye v Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 69 AD3d 1074, 1074 [2010]).

2011Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, supports the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating the disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using controlled substances (see Matter of Stanford v Fischer, 11 AD3d 1013, 1013-1014 [2010]; Matter of Frye v Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 69 AD3d 1074, 1074 [2010]).

2017Petitioner’s claim that he was unaware of the particular rules that he violated also presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer and, in any event, petitioner’s professed lack of awareness of the relevant rules “does not absolve him from guilt” (Matter of Jenkins v Senkowski, 221 AD2d 779, 779 [1995]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the dismissal of the forgery charge does not require annulment of the contraband charge as that latter charge is based upon the fact that petitioner did not have authorization to possess the forms at issue—rather than the fact they were forged—and, as such, they constituted contraband (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii]; see also Matter of Jenkins v Senkowski, 221 AD2d 779 [1995]).

2012Petitioner’s defense that the positive test results were attributable either to his ingestion of prescription medication or crackers containing poppy seeds presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Shabazz v Selsky, 12 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]).

2012Petitioner’s defense that the positive test results were attributable either to his ingestion of prescription medication or crackers containing poppy seeds presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Shabazz v Selsky, 12 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]).

2012The detailed misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Dozier v Selsky, 54 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2008]; Matter of Dexter v Goord, 43 AD3d 516, 517 [2007]).

2012The detailed misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Dozier v Selsky, 54 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2008]; Matter of Dexter v Goord, 43 AD3d 516, 517 [2007]).

2008Preliminarily, to the extent that petitioner raises a substantial evidence issue, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Molina v Selsky, 21 AD3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2005]; Matter of Pollard v Goord, 18 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2005]).

2007The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and. related documentation as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Molina v Selsky, 21 AD3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2005]; Matter of Paige v Goord, 19 AD3d 908, 908 [2005]).

2017The positive toxicology, together with the father’s substance abuse history, his failure to submit to drug screening as requested, and his mental health issues, for which he fails to take his prescribed medication and fails to attend mental health appointments, supports the finding of neglect on the ground that the child was placed in imminent danger (see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79 [1995]).

2017The positive toxicology, together with the father’s substance abuse history, his failure to submit to drug screening as requested, and his mental health issues, for which he fails to take his prescribed medication and fails to attend mental health appointments, supports the finding of neglect on the ground that the child was placed in imminent danger (see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79 [1995]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2019The misbehavior report, the testimony adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence and the video recording of the incident provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Caldwell v Rock , 93 AD3d 1048, 1048 [2012]; Matter of Mealer v Selsky , 290 AD2d 778, 778 [2002]; Matter of Garcia v Goord , 261 AD2d 674, 674 [1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 834 [1999]).

2008The misbehavior report and the testimony adduced at the hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner engaged in inappropriate physical contact with his visitor (see Matter of Mealer v Selsky, 290 AD2d 778, 778-779 [2002]).

2018The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and the related documentation and the testimony adduced at the hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Harriott v Annucci , 131 AD3d 754 , 754 [2015], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 1028 [2016]; Matter of Thompson v Goord , 37 AD3d 914, 914 [2007]; Matter of Davis v Goord , 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]).

2007Petitioner’s exculpatory testimony regarding the content of the correspondence presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Thompson v Goord, 37 AD3d 914, 914 [2007]).

2014Petitioner admitted to having another inmate’s legal papers, and petitioner’s proffered explana tion created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d at 956-957 ; Matter of Kelly v Department of Correctional Servs., 75 AD3d 672, 673 [2010]; Matter of Lopez v Healy, 39 AD3d 978, 978 [2007]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d at 1050).

2014Petitioner admitted to having another inmate’s legal papers, and petitioner’s proffered explana tion created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d at 956-957 ; Matter of Kelly v Department of Correctional Servs., 75 AD3d 672, 673 [2010]; Matter of Lopez v Healy, 39 AD3d 978, 978 [2007]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d at 1050).

2014The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Somerville v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]).

2014The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Somerville v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]).

2014Supreme Court transferred the claims relating to the disciplinary determinations to this Court. * We find that, in light of the misbehavior report, documentary evidence and the testimony adduced at the hearing, the first determination finding petitioner guilty of providing unauthorized legal assistance is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d 956, 956 [2013]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2006]).

2014Supreme Court transferred the claims relating to the disciplinary determinations to this Court. * We find that, in light of the misbehavior report, documentary evidence and the testimony adduced at the hearing, the first determination finding petitioner guilty of providing unauthorized legal assistance is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d 956, 956 [2013]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2006]).

2014Although petitioner maintained that the misbehavior report was prepared in retaliation for grievances and complaints he had filed against staff, that the correction officer who came to pack his cell inflicted the injuries to himself and that it was he who was assaulted by officers, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 108 AD3d 999, 1000 [2013]; Matter of Hemphill v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1309 [2012] ).

2014Although petitioner maintained that the misbehavior report was prepared in retaliation for grievances and complaints he had filed against staff, that the correction officer who came to pack his cell inflicted the injuries to himself and that it was he who was assaulted by officers, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 108 AD3d 999, 1000 [2013]; Matter of Hemphill v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1309 [2012] ).

2014Supreme Court transferred the claims relating to the disciplinary determinations to this Court. * We find that, in light of the misbehavior report, documentary evidence and the testimony adduced at the hearing, the first determination finding petitioner guilty of providing unauthorized legal assistance is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d 956, 956 [2013]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2006]).

2014Supreme Court transferred the claims relating to the disciplinary determinations to this Court. * We find that, in light of the misbehavior report, documentary evidence and the testimony adduced at the hearing, the first determination finding petitioner guilty of providing unauthorized legal assistance is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d 956, 956 [2013]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2006]).

2014Petitioner admitted to having another inmate’s legal papers, and petitioner’s proffered explana tion created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d at 956-957 ; Matter of Kelly v Department of Correctional Servs., 75 AD3d 672, 673 [2010]; Matter of Lopez v Healy, 39 AD3d 978, 978 [2007]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d at 1050).

2014Petitioner admitted to having another inmate’s legal papers, and petitioner’s proffered explana tion created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d at 956-957 ; Matter of Kelly v Department of Correctional Servs., 75 AD3d 672, 673 [2010]; Matter of Lopez v Healy, 39 AD3d 978, 978 [2007]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d at 1050).

2013The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Acosta v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1170, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Cruz v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2012]).

2013The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Acosta v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1170, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Cruz v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2012]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Hearing Officer undertook an independent assessment of the credibility of the confidential informant by conducting a detailed interview with the correction officer who questioned this individual (see Matter of Brown v Bezio, 76 AD3d 741 , 742 [2010]; Matter of Berry v Portuondo, 6 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Hearing Officer undertook an independent assessment of the credibility of the confidential informant by conducting a detailed interview with the correction officer who questioned this individual (see Matter of Brown v Bezio, 76 AD3d 741 , 742 [2010]; Matter of Berry v Portuondo, 6 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]).