misbehavior report hearing in New York

2013We find that the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of the sergeant who authored it provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Vigliotti v Bell, 52 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2008]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2013We find that the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of the sergeant who authored it provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Vigliotti v Bell, 52 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2008]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony of a correction officer who heard petitioner make threatening comments after undergoing a pat frisk constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Evans v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2014]; Matter of Connelly v Griffin, 101 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2012]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony of a correction officer who heard petitioner make threatening comments after undergoing a pat frisk constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Evans v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2014]; Matter of Connelly v Griffin, 101 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2012]).

2014That part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing contraband and engaging in an unauthorized exchange is, however, supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony (see Matter of Brooks v Unger, 110 AD3d 1122, 1122 [2013]; Matter of Berkoviz v Lee, 102 AD3d 866, 867 [2013]).

2014That part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing contraband and engaging in an unauthorized exchange is, however, supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony (see Matter of Brooks v Unger, 110 AD3d 1122, 1122 [2013]; Matter of Berkoviz v Lee, 102 AD3d 866, 867 [2013]).

2013The misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2012]; Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1396, 1396-1397 [2010]; Matter of Trisvan v Fischer, 71 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2010]).

2013The misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2012]; Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1396, 1396-1397 [2010]; Matter of Trisvan v Fischer, 71 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2010]).

2010Substantial evidence, including the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of its author, supports the determination of guilt for the charges of harassment and refusing a direct order (see Matter of Sanders v Goord, 47 AD3d 987, 988 [2008]).

2010The misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of its author provide substantial evidence in support of the determination of guilt (see Matter of Sanders v Goord, 47 AD3d 987, 988 [2008]).

2018The misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provided substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's determination that the petitioner violated the subject prison disciplinary rules ( see Matter of Burgess v Bellnier , 138 AD3d 989, 990 ; Matter of Urena v Annucci , 134 AD3d 727, 728-729 ; Matter of Berkoviz v Lee , 102 AD3d 866, 867 ).

2015Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provided substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner violated the subject prison disciplinary rules (see Matter of La Puma v Lee, 115 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Matter of Berkoviz v Lee, 102 AD3d 866, 867 [2013]; Matter of Medina v Sing Sing Correctional Facility, 95 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2012]; Matter of Salvatierra v Weeden, 88 AD3d 728, 729 [2011]).

2025The contrary testimony offered by petitioner and his witnesses, as well as petitioner's assertion that the misbehavior report was fabricated in certain respects, presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Cosme v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 168 AD3d 1327 , 1328 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Tigner v Annucci , 147 AD3d 1138, 1139 [3d Dept 2017]).

2023With regard to the April 13, 2021 determination, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony, including the testimony from the author of the misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Cosme v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 168 AD3d 1327 , 1327-1328 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Tigner v Annucci , 147 AD3d 1138, 1139 [3d Dept 2017]).

2024Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony, including the testimony from the author of the misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Dove v Annucci , 190 AD3d 1181, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 909 [2021]; Matter of Steele v Annucci , 178 AD3d 1226 , 1226 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Barclay v Goord , 23 AD3d 862, 862 [3d Dept 2005], lvs denied 6 NY3d 705 , 710 [2006]).

2021The misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Dove v Annucci , 190 AD3d 1181, 1181-1182 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 909 [2021]; Matter of Steele v Annucci , 178 AD3d 1226 , 1226-1227 [2019]).

2022In addition, substantial evidence, in the form of the misbehavior report and hearing testimony, supports the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Snyder v Annucci , 188 AD3d 1346, 1347 [2020]; Matter of Cosme v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 168 AD3d 1327 , 1328 [2019]; Matter of Williams v Kirkpatrick , 153 AD3d 996, 996 [2017]).

2021Although petitioner testified that he had no recollection of the incident, the author of the misbehavior report testified that petitioner was awake and responsive when she ordered him to remove the bedsheets, creating a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of McClary v Annucci , 189 AD3d 1812, 1813 [2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 905 [2021]; Matter of Snyder v Annucci , 188 AD3d 1346, 1347 [2020]).

2021Initially, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony from the correction officer who authored that report provide substantial evidence to support the prison disciplinary determination ( see Matter of Beltre v Rodriguez , 185 AD3d 1370, 1370 [2020]; Matter of Green v Kirkpatrick , 165 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 919 [2019]; Matter of Coneen v Selsky , 246 AD2d 946, 946 [1998]).

2021The misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Beltre v Rodriguez , 185 AD3d 1370, 1370 [2020]; Matter of Woodward v Annucci , 175 AD3d 785 , 785-786 [2019]).

2017The misbehavior report and hearing testimony from the authors of that report, as well as the video of the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Harriott v Koenigsmann, 149 AD3d 1440, 1441 [2017]; Matter of Fero v Prack, 110 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2013]; Matter of Barnes v Fischer, 93 AD3d 967, 967 [2012]; Matter of Barnes v Prack, 87 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2011]).

2014Moreover, we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of documentary evidence that was irrelevant to these charges (see Matter of Barnes v Prack, 87 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2011]; Matter of Pujals v Fischer, 87 AD3d 767, 767 [2011]).

2017Turning to the disciplinary matter, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Terrence v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2015]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

2017Turning to the disciplinary matter, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Terrence v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2015]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

2017The contrary testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses, as well as petitioner’s claim that the charges were fabricated in retaliation for previous grievances that he had filed — which was denied by the author of the misbehavior report — raised credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Garrow v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2016]; Matter of Jones v Fischer, 138 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2017The contrary testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses, as well as petitioner’s claim that the charges were fabricated in retaliation for previous grievances that he had filed — which was denied by the author of the misbehavior report — raised credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Garrow v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2016]; Matter of Jones v Fischer, 138 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2017The contrary testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses, as well as petitioner’s claim that the charges were fabricated in retaliation for previous grievances that he had filed — which was denied by the author of the misbehavior report — raised credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Garrow v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2016]; Matter of Jones v Fischer, 138 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2017The contrary testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses, as well as petitioner’s claim that the charges were fabricated in retaliation for previous grievances that he had filed — which was denied by the author of the misbehavior report — raised credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Garrow v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2016]; Matter of Jones v Fischer, 138 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2017Turning to the disciplinary matter, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Terrence v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2015]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

2017Turning to the disciplinary matter, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Terrence v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2015]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

2015Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provided substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner violated the subject prison disciplinary rules (see Matter of La Puma v Lee, 115 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Matter of Berkoviz v Lee, 102 AD3d 866, 867 [2013]; Matter of Medina v Sing Sing Correctional Facility, 95 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2012]; Matter of Salvatierra v Weeden, 88 AD3d 728, 729 [2011]).

2015Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report adequately complied with 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (a) and contained the necessary specificity to apprise the petitioner of the charges against him so as to enable him to prepare an adequate defense (see Matter of Berkoviz v Lee, 102 AD3d at 867 ; Matter of Medina v Sing Sing Correctional Facility, 95 AD3d at 1332 ; Matter of Salvatierra v Weeden, 88 AD3d at 729 ).

2015Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provided substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner violated the subject prison disciplinary rules (see Matter of La Puma v Lee, 115 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Matter of Berkoviz v Lee, 102 AD3d 866, 867 [2013]; Matter of Medina v Sing Sing Correctional Facility, 95 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2012]; Matter of Salvatierra v Weeden, 88 AD3d 728, 729 [2011]).

2013Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provided substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner violated the subject prison disciplinary rules (see Matter of Topsy v Venettozzi, 98 AD3d 520, 521 [2012]; Matter of Stapleton v Connolly, 96 AD3d 861 [2012]; Matter of Carlisle v Lee, 96 AD3d 837 [2012]; Matter of Medina v Sing Sing Correctional Facility, 95 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2012]; Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]).

2014Petitioner contends that several confiscated items had been reviewed by the mail room at his previous facility without incident but, even if true, “this would not alter the fact that The material is nonetheless prohibited by the prison disciplinary rule’ ” (Matter of Madison v Fischer, 108 AD3d 959 , 960 [2013], quoting Matter of Smith v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1314, 1314 [2012]).

2014Petitioner contends that several confiscated items had been reviewed by the mail room at his previous facility without incident but, even if true, “this would not alter the fact that The material is nonetheless prohibited by the prison disciplinary rule’ ” (Matter of Madison v Fischer, 108 AD3d 959 , 960 [2013], quoting Matter of Smith v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1314, 1314 [2012]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony, including that of a prison official with experience in identifying gang-related materials, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Doyle v Prack, 115 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 907 [2014]; Matter of Boyd v Fischer, 108 AD3d 995, 995 [2013]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony, including that of a prison official with experience in identifying gang-related materials, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Doyle v Prack, 115 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 907 [2014]; Matter of Boyd v Fischer, 108 AD3d 995, 995 [2013]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Sagardia v Chappius, 111 AD3d 1187 , 1187 [2013]; Matter of Green v Taylor, 108 AD3d 960, 960-961 [2013]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Sagardia v Chappius, 111 AD3d 1187 , 1187 [2013]; Matter of Green v Taylor, 108 AD3d 960, 960-961 [2013]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony, including that of a prison official with experience in identifying gang-related materials, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Doyle v Prack, 115 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 907 [2014]; Matter of Boyd v Fischer, 108 AD3d 995, 995 [2013]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony, including that of a prison official with experience in identifying gang-related materials, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Doyle v Prack, 115 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 907 [2014]; Matter of Boyd v Fischer, 108 AD3d 995, 995 [2013]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony of a correction officer who heard petitioner make threatening comments after undergoing a pat frisk constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Evans v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2014]; Matter of Connelly v Griffin, 101 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2012]).

2014The misbehavior report and hearing testimony of a correction officer who heard petitioner make threatening comments after undergoing a pat frisk constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Evans v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2014]; Matter of Connelly v Griffin, 101 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2012]).

2013We find that the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of the sergeant who authored it provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Vigliotti v Bell, 52 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2008]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2013We find that the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of the sergeant who authored it provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Vigliotti v Bell, 52 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2008]; Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore, 24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).

2021Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that he violated those inmate rules ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 162 AD3d 1530 , 1531 [4th Dept 2018]).

2018Vega v Smith , 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]), i.e., the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of its author, which established that petitioner approached the victim from behind and cut him and that, immediately after the incident, the victim identified petitioner as the assailant ( see generally Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).