charges claim in New York

2013Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that he was assaulted by correction officers and spit because he was choking presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]).

2013Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that he was assaulted by correction officers and spit because he was choking presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]).

2012Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that it was he who was assaulted by officers 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 Terrence v Fischer, 64 AD3d at 1111 ).

2012Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that it was he who was assaulted by officers 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 Terrence v Fischer, 64 AD3d at 1111 ).

2013Turning to petitioner’s procedural contentions, we reject his claim that he was improperly removed from the disciplinary hearing, as the record reflects that, despite warnings from the Hearing Officer, he was continually disruptive and uncooperative (see Matter of Steward v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1523, 1524 [2012]; Matter of Odom v Fischer, 65 AD3d 1425, 1426 [2009]).

2013Turning to petitioner’s procedural contentions, we reject his claim that he was improperly removed from the disciplinary hearing, as the record reflects that, despite warnings from the Hearing Officer, he was continually disruptive and uncooperative (see Matter of Steward v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1523, 1524 [2012]; Matter of Odom v Fischer, 65 AD3d 1425, 1426 [2009]).

2013Petitioner was provided with fair notice of the charges and hearing dates, an opportunity to present a defense and a fair hearing that comported with due process (see Matter of Kosich v New York State Dept. of Health, 49 AD3d 980, 981 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 950 [2008]).

2013Petitioner was provided with fair notice of the charges and hearing dates, an opportunity to present a defense and a fair hearing that comported with due process (see Matter of Kosich v New York State Dept. of Health, 49 AD3d 980, 981 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 950 [2008]).

2013The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely, last minute request for an adjournment of the agreed-upon second day of the hearing (see id. at 982-983; see also Matter of Rigle v Dairies, 78 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 825 [2011]).

2013The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely, last minute request for an adjournment of the agreed-upon second day of the hearing (see id. at 982-983; see also Matter of Rigle v Dairies, 78 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 825 [2011]).

2013Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that the damaged sheets and towels were already in his cell when he started to occupy it presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Joseph v LaClair, 89 AD3d 1298 , 1298 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 809 [2012]; Matter of Encarnacion v Bellnier, 89 AD3d 1301, 1302 [2011]).

2013Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that the damaged sheets and towels were already in his cell when he started to occupy it presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Joseph v LaClair, 89 AD3d 1298 , 1298 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 809 [2012]; Matter of Encarnacion v Bellnier, 89 AD3d 1301, 1302 [2011]).

2013Turning to petitioner’s procedural contentions, we reject his claim that he was improperly removed from the disciplinary hearing, as the record reflects that, despite warnings from the Hearing Officer, he was continually disruptive and uncooperative (see Matter of Steward v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1523, 1524 [2012]; Matter of Odom v Fischer, 65 AD3d 1425, 1426 [2009]).

2013Turning to petitioner’s procedural contentions, we reject his claim that he was improperly removed from the disciplinary hearing, as the record reflects that, despite warnings from the Hearing Officer, he was continually disruptive and uncooperative (see Matter of Steward v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1523, 1524 [2012]; Matter of Odom v Fischer, 65 AD3d 1425, 1426 [2009]).

2013Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that he was assaulted by correction officers and spit because he was choking presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]).

2013Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that he was assaulted by correction officers and spit because he was choking presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moreno v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1167, 1167 [2012]; Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]).

2013Unfortunately for petitioner, neither her retrospective regret with her own decision to enter into the consent order—thereby waiving the opportunity to defend herself against the charges and challenge the process employed by respondent—nor the negative impact of the consent order on her reputation and livelihood, nor her belief that the negotiated penalty was excessive provides a legal basis for reconsideration (see 8 NYCRR 3.3 [f]; Matter of Anderson v Arnbach, 96 AD2d at 632 ; see also Matter of Mastanduono v Department of Educ., 159 AD2d 752, 753 [1990]).

2013Unfortunately for petitioner, neither her retrospective regret with her own decision to enter into the consent order—thereby waiving the opportunity to defend herself against the charges and challenge the process employed by respondent—nor the negative impact of the consent order on her reputation and livelihood, nor her belief that the negotiated penalty was excessive provides a legal basis for reconsideration (see 8 NYCRR 3.3 [f]; Matter of Anderson v Arnbach, 96 AD2d at 632 ; see also Matter of Mastanduono v Department of Educ., 159 AD2d 752, 753 [1990]).

2013Petitioner was provided with fair notice of the charges and hearing dates, an opportunity to present a defense and a fair hearing that comported with due process (see Matter of Kosich v New York State Dept. of Health, 49 AD3d 980, 981 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 950 [2008]).

2013Petitioner was provided with fair notice of the charges and hearing dates, an opportunity to present a defense and a fair hearing that comported with due process (see Matter of Kosich v New York State Dept. of Health, 49 AD3d 980, 981 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 950 [2008]).

2013The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely, last minute request for an adjournment of the agreed-upon second day of the hearing (see id. at 982-983; see also Matter of Rigle v Dairies, 78 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 825 [2011]).

2013The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) did not abuse her discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely, last minute request for an adjournment of the agreed-upon second day of the hearing (see id. at 982-983; see also Matter of Rigle v Dairies, 78 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 825 [2011]).

2012Although the Hearing Officer should not have denied petitioner’s request for the medical records of the officer injured in the assault absent a showing that it would jeopardize institutional security, any such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented establishing petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; Matter of Joseph v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2009]).

2012Although the Hearing Officer should not have denied petitioner’s request for the medical records of the officer injured in the assault absent a showing that it would jeopardize institutional security, any such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented establishing petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; Matter of Joseph v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2009]).

2012Although the Hearing Officer should not have denied petitioner’s request for the medical records of the officer injured in the assault absent a showing that it would jeopardize institutional security, any such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented establishing petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; Matter of Joseph v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2009]).

2012Although the Hearing Officer should not have denied petitioner’s request for the medical records of the officer injured in the assault absent a showing that it would jeopardize institutional security, any such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented establishing petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; Matter of Joseph v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2009]).

2012Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for a prior grievance presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1249, 1250 [2011]; Matter of Jackson v Dubray, 56 AD3d 919 [2008]).

2012Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for a prior grievance presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1249, 1250 [2011]; Matter of Jackson v Dubray, 56 AD3d 919 [2008]).

2019Both correction officers who were involved in and witnessed the incident testified at the hearing, and petitioner failed to articulate how any other of his requested witnesses who did not testify had firsthand knowledge of the incident or would have provided testimony relevant to the charges or to his defense ( see Matter of Covington v Annucci , 160 AD3d 1333 , 1334 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 903 [2018]; Matter of Baez v Venettozzi , 155 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2017]; Matter of Aguirre v Fischer , 111 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2013]).

2019Both correction officers who were involved in and witnessed the incident testified at the hearing, and petitioner failed to articulate how any other of his requested witnesses who did not testify had firsthand knowledge of the incident or would have provided testimony relevant to the charges or to his defense ( see Matter of Covington v Annucci , 160 AD3d 1333 , 1334 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 903 [2018]; Matter of Baez v Venettozzi , 155 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2017]; Matter of Aguirre v Fischer , 111 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2013]).

2019Moreover, the Hearing Officer made reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to identify certain correction officers who responded to the incident ( see Matter of McClough v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2014]; Matter of Stephens v Lee , 115 AD3d 964, 964 [2014]).

2019Moreover, the Hearing Officer made reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to identify certain correction officers who responded to the incident ( see Matter of McClough v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2014]; Matter of Stephens v Lee , 115 AD3d 964, 964 [2014]).

2017Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that he did not know the inmate involved in the incident presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of *1509 Ramirez v Annucci, 138 AD3d 1262, 1263 [2016]; Matter of Beasley v Venettozzi, 122 AD3d 1038, 1038 [2014]).

2017Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that he did not know the inmate involved in the incident presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of *1509 Ramirez v Annucci, 138 AD3d 1262, 1263 [2016]; Matter of Beasley v Venettozzi, 122 AD3d 1038, 1038 [2014]).

2017Nor was petitioner improperly denied the wire gate officer as a requested witness, given that petitioner failed to articulate or demonstrate how this witness could have provided testimony relevant to the charges or to his defense (see Matter of Sparks v Annucci, 144 AD3d 1352, 1353 [2016]; see generally Matter of Reyes v Keyser, 150 AD3d 1502, 1503 [2017]).

2017Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we further conclude that he was not improperly denied the right to call his wife as a witness, as he failed to articulate how this witness, who had no direct knowledge of the incident described in the misbehavior report, could have provided testimony relevant to the charges or to his defense of those charges (see Matter of Ramos v Venettozzi, 153 AD3d at 1076 ; Canalas Sanchez v Annucci, 126 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2015]).