opportunity to prepare defense in New York

2010Inasmuch as it resulted from an ongoing investigation and was based upon confidential information, we find that enough details were provided to afford petitioner the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Willacy v Fischer, 67 AD3d at 1100 ; Matter of Jackson v Smith, 13 AD3d 685, 685-686 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 707 [2005]).

2009We do not agree with petitioner’s contention that he lacked fair notice of the charges because the misbehavior report did not allege “the date, time and place” that he committed the alleged misconduct, i.e., attempting to acquire Cassell’s home address (7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [3]). * The misbehavior report clearly advised that the “incident date” was October 22, 2007, the date on which its author, Howerter, received “confidential information” that petitioner “has been attempting to acquire [Cassell’s] home address,” providing adequate information to apprise him of the charges and afford him an op

2018Contrary to petitioner's claim, the misbehavior report afforded him adequate notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [1], [4]; Matter of Caraway v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 903 [2017]).

2018Finally, we find that the misbehavior report provided petitioner adequate notice of the charges against him, thus affording him an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see Matter of Robinson v Lee , 155 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2017]; Matter of Caraway v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2016], lv [*2]denied 29 NY3d 903 [2017]).

2009Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to afford him the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]; Matter of Toney v Goord, 26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]).

2009Turning to petitioner’s procedural claims, we find that the acts of misconduct were sufficiently detailed in the misbehavior report so as to afford him the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]; Matter of Toney v Goord, 26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]).

2005Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report contained sufficient detail to give petitioner adequate notice of the charge and “afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense” (Matter of Smith v Portuondo, 309 AD2d 1028, 1028 [2003] ; see Matter of Jackson v Smith, 13 AD3d 685, 685-686 [2004] , lv denied 4 NY3d 707 [2005]).

2005His complaint that the first report did not adequately describe the disturbance charge is without merit inasmuch as the misbehavior report provided petitioner with sufficient detail, including the date, time, location and a thorough description of the incident, to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Smith v Portuondo, 309 AD2d 1028, 1028 [2003]).

2023Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to provide him notice of the charges and to enable him to discern his role in the incident, thereby affording him an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Bekka v Annucci , 168 AD3d 1334 , 1335 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Robinson v Lee , 155 AD3d 1169, 1170 [3d Dept 2017]).

2018Finally, we find that the misbehavior report provided petitioner adequate notice of the charges against him, thus affording him an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see Matter of Robinson v Lee , 155 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2017]; Matter of Caraway v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2016], lv [*2]denied 29 NY3d 903 [2017]).

2021The misbehavior report provided sufficient information to place him on notice of the charge and afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Quiroz v Venettozzi , 161 AD3d at 1476; Matter of Williams v Fischer , 93 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2012]), and, in any event, petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the typographical error in the report ( see Matter of Grant v Prack , 86 AD3d 885, 886 [2011]; Matter of Alston v Great Meadow Correctional Facility , 252 AD2d 697, 698 [1998]).

2018Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report provided sufficient information to place him on notice of the charges and afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Williams v Fischer , 93 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2012]).

2018Further, contrary to petitioner's [*2]contention, the misbehavior report — which set forth the date and time of the telephone calls, as well as the results of the investigation and interview with his wife — was sufficiently detailed to provide him with adequate notice of the charges and an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see Matter of McDonald v Fischer , 93 AD3d 969, 969 [2012]).

2018The misbehavior report — which identified his misconduct and the rule violations at issue, and set forth the results of the investigation and the date that the investigation began and concluded — was sufficiently detailed to provide petitioner with adequate notice of the charges and an opportunity to prepare a defense ( see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [1]; Matter of Hobson v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 159 AD3d at 1187; Matter of Caldarola v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2017]; Matter of McDonald v Fischer , 93 AD3d 969, 969 [2012]).

2016In our view, the misbehavior report provided sufficient detail to discern petitioner’s role in the incident so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [4]; Matter of Pequero v Fischer, 122 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Basbus v Brack, 112 AD3d 1088 , 1088 [2013]).

2016In our view, the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific and provided adequate information to discern petitioner’s role in the incident so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 *1298 [c] [1], [4]; Matter of Pequero v Fischer, 122 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Basbus v Prack, 112 AD3d 1088, 1088 [2013]).

2009Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to afford him the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]; Matter of Toney v Goord, 26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]).

2009Turning to petitioner’s procedural claims, we find that the acts of misconduct were sufficiently detailed in the misbehavior report so as to afford him the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]; Matter of Toney v Goord, 26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]).

2010Inasmuch as it resulted from an ongoing investigation and was based upon confidential information, we find that enough details were provided to afford petitioner the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Willacy v Fischer, 67 AD3d at 1100 ; Matter of Jackson v Smith, 13 AD3d 685, 685-686 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 707 [2005]).

2009We do not agree with petitioner’s contention that he lacked fair notice of the charges because the misbehavior report did not allege “the date, time and place” that he committed the alleged misconduct, i.e., attempting to acquire Cassell’s home address (7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [3]). * The misbehavior report clearly advised that the “incident date” was October 22, 2007, the date on which its author, Howerter, received “confidential information” that petitioner “has been attempting to acquire [Cassell’s] home address,” providing adequate information to apprise him of the charges and afford him an op

2004Inasmuch as the report provided enough details of the investigation to “afford [petitioner] an opportunity to prepare a defense” (Matter of Smith v Portuondo, 309 AD2d 1028, 1028 [2003]; see Matter of LaBounty v Goord, 245 AD2d 675, 676 [1997], appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 1002 [1998]), we find that it provided adequate notice.

2003The misbehavior report provided petitioner with sufficient detail to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Quintana v Selsky, 268 AD2d 624 [2000]; Matter of La Bounty v Goord, 245 AD2d 675 [1997], appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 1002 [1998]).

2016In our view, the misbehavior report provided sufficient detail to discern petitioner’s role in the incident so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [4]; Matter of Pequero v Fischer, 122 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Basbus v Brack, 112 AD3d 1088 , 1088 [2013]).

2016In our view, the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific and provided adequate information to discern petitioner’s role in the incident so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 *1298 [c] [1], [4]; Matter of Pequero v Fischer, 122 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Basbus v Prack, 112 AD3d 1088, 1088 [2013]).

2009We do not agree with petitioner’s contention that he lacked fair notice of the charges because the misbehavior report did not allege “the date, time and place” that he committed the alleged misconduct, i.e., attempting to acquire Cassell’s home address (7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [3]). * The misbehavior report clearly advised that the “incident date” was October 22, 2007, the date on which its author, Howerter, received “confidential information” that petitioner “has been attempting to acquire [Cassell’s] home address,” providing adequate information to apprise him of the charges and afford him an op

2001Viewed in the context of a lengthy, ongoing investigation, the failure of the misbehavior report to specify the precise places, dates and times during which petitioner engaged in the prohibited conduct is not fatal (see, Matter of Mays v Goord, 285 AD2d 847 , lv denied 97 NY2d 603 ; Matter of Moore v Goord, 279 AD2d 682, 683 ).

2004Initially, we find that the misbehavior reports provided petitioner with sufficient “notice of the charge [s] against him and the opportunity to prepare a defense” (Matter of Hamlett v Goord, 275 AD2d 497, 498 [2000]; see Matter of Eure v Goord, 271 AD2d 786, 786 [2000]).

2000The misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to provide petitioner with notice of the charge against him and the opportunity to prepare a defense and, as such, petitioner was not prejudiced by any minor time discrepancy (see, Matter of Eure v Goord, 271 AD2d 786 ).

2024To the extent that the misbehavior report contained certain clerical errors, we are satisfied that it provided petitioner sufficient notice of the charges against her and afforded her an opportunity to prepare a defense; we further note that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by any discrepancies in this regard ( see Matter of Bellamy v Noeth , 195 AD3d 1289, 1289-1290 [3d Dept 2021]).

2024Finally, "it is the function of the review officer, based upon the seriousness of the charges and the appropriate corresponding penalty in the event the charges are substantiated, to determine the tier classification" ( Matter of Pettus v Selsky , 28 AD3d 1043, 1043-1044 [3d Dept 2006]; accord Matter of Credell v Hurt , 167 AD3d 1113 , 1114 [3d Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 919 [2019]; see 7 NYCRR 251-2.2).