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: Raymond PETERS, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Corrections, Respondent.
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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting assaults. The misbehavior report related that, according to confidential information received by the correction officer who authored the report, it was petitioner who cut another inmate's face in retaliation for an overdue gambling debt, requiring the inmate to receive 23 stitches. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the Hearing Officer was not required to personally interview the confidential informant (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 623 N.Y.S.2d 758, 647 N.E.2d 1266; Matter of Vega v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 807, 712 N.Y.S.2d 78). The confidential information relayed that the informant witnessed the attack, identified petitioner as the perpetrator and described the manner in which petitioner cut the inmate. This confidential information was sufficiently detailed and probative for the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of the informant (see, Matter of Matos v. Goord, 267 A.D.2d 730, 731, 699 N.Y.S.2d 780). The confidential information, together with the misbehavior report and testimony presented at the hearing, provides substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, id.). To the extent that petitioner denied the charge, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of West v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 544, 716 N.Y.S.2d 620).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 01, 2001
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)