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 MORILLO, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
After an investigation disclosed that petitioner cut another inmate on the side of the face, he was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting an inmate, engaging in violent conduct and possessing a weapon. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, documentary evidence and testimony at the hearing, as well as the confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Turner v. Goord, 32 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 821 N.Y.S.2d 309 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 804, 830 N.Y.S.2d 700, 862 N.E.2d 792 [2007]; Matter of Key v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 849, 797 N.Y.S.2d 168 [2005] ). 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 sergeant who interviewed them (see Matter of Camacho v. Goord, 18 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 795 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2005]; Matter of Berry v. Portuondo, 6 A.D.3d 848, 849, 775 N.Y.S.2d 110 [2004] ). The conflicting testimony of petitioner and certain inmate witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Boyd v. Goord, 18 A.D.3d 1078, 1079, 795 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2005] ). Moreover, there is no merit to petitioner's challenge to the misbehavior report as the information contained therein was sufficiently particular to enable petitioner to prepare a defense (see Matter of Kalwasinski v. Goord, 25 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 810 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2006] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions are either not preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.
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: March 01, 2007
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)