Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Jamall SAMUEL, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a fire in an inmate's cell which injured the inmate and damaged state property, investigating correction officers discovered information leading them to believe that petitioner had ordered another inmate to set the fire. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with arson, assaulting an inmate and destroying state property. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. On administrative appeal, the determination was affirmed with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report, the testimony of its author and the confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rivera v. Goord, 38 A.D.3d 964, 964, 832 N.Y.S.2d 300 [2007]; Matter of Walton v. Selsky, 35 A.D.3d 923, 923, 825 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2006] ). “Contrary to petitioner's claim, the record discloses that the Hearing Officer independently verified the reliability of the information provided by the confidential informants by conducting a personal interview of one of the informants as well as the correction [officer] who interviewed them” (Matter of Morillo v. Goord, 38 A.D.3d 947, 947, 832 N.Y.S.2d 301 [2007] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Moore v. Miller, 298 A.D.2d 776, 777, 749 N.Y.S.2d 312 [2002] ). Petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer improperly failed to ascertain the reason for certain witnesses' refusals to testify is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not raise it at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Mitchell v. Goord, 28 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 813 N.Y.S.2d 278 [2006]; Matter of Early v. Coughlin, 207 A.D.2d 588, 589, 615 N.Y.S.2d 501 [1994] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 24, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)