RAMOS v. HERBERT (1998)

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of various inmate rule violations and imposing a penalty of 90 days in the Special Housing Unit with a concomitant loss of good time and privileges.   Petitioner challenges the determination on the ground that respondents failed to serve petitioner with a written statement of the evidence relied upon in reaching the determination and the reasons for the penalty imposed, in violation of due process and 7 NYCRR 254.7(a)(5).

Because the petition does not raise a substantial evidence question, the proceeding was improperly transferred to us pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).  Nevertheless, we decide the matter in the interest of judicial economy (see, Matter of Moulden v. Coughlin, 210 A.D.2d 997, 621 N.Y.S.2d 250).

Addressing the merits, we conclude that the Hearing Officer provided petitioner with a written statement of disposition, as required by due process and the regulation (see, Matter of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-565, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935;  Matter of Laureano v. Kuhlmann, 75 N.Y.2d 141, 146, 551 N.Y.S.2d 184, 550 N.E.2d 437).   The completed form attached to the answer sets forth the evidence relied upon by the Hearing Officer and the reasons for the penalties imposed (see, Matter of Bernacet v. Coughlin, 145 A.D.2d 802, 804, 535 N.Y.S.2d 785, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 603, 542 N.Y.S.2d 518, 540 N.E.2d 713;  Matter of Jackson v. Coughlin, 129 A.D.2d 639, 641, 514 N.Y.S.2d 117).   There is no support for petitioner's contention that the form is a forgery.

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: