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: Miguel HARVEY, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, 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 Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of unauthorized organizational activity and a facility correspondence violation. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report and testimony adduced at the hearing, including admissions made by petitioner that he mailed the offending letter containing organizational recruitment instructions to a third person not addressed on the outside of the envelope (see Matter of Lopez v. Healy, 39 A.D.3d 978, 978, 835 N.Y.S.2d 464 [2007]; Matter of Rizzuto v. Goord, 35 A.D.3d 1075, 1075, 825 N.Y.S.2d 592 [2006] ). As for petitioner's claim that the organization was not unauthorized, that created credibility issues for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Rivera v. Selsky, 43 A.D.3d 1210, 1210, 841 N.Y.S.2d 412 [2007] ). To the extent preserved, we have examined petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims that the opening of his mail was not authorized and he was denied the right to present witness testimony, and find them to be unavailing.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: January 17, 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)