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: Pablo RODRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Philip COOMBE Jr., as Commissioner of the Department 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 a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with ordering an assault upon another inmate in his capacity as a gang leader. He was found guilty, after a disciplinary hearing, of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from assaulting other inmates. He challenges this determination arguing, inter alia, that it is not supported by substantial evidence and that he was improperly denied the right to call a certain witness at the hearing.
Based upon our review of the record, we find petitioner's claims to be without merit. The misbehavior report, along with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the information furnished by the confidential informants, provides substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt. Our in camera review of the transcript of the confidential tape convinces us that the Hearing Officer undertook an adequate independent investigation to assess the reliability of the confidential informants (see, Matter of Scott v. Coombe, 228 A.D.2d 996, 645 N.Y.S.2d 558; Matter of Otero v. Coughlin, 225 A.D.2d 841, 638 N.Y.S.2d 824; Matter of Harrison v. Selsky, 222 A.D.2d 914, 635 N.Y.S.2d 758, appeal dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 1054, 644 N.Y.S.2d 146, 666 N.E.2d 1060). In addition, the record reveals that the inmate whom petitioner claims he was precluded from calling as a witness at the hearing communicated his unwillingness to testify to the Hearing Officer. The fact that he would not cooperate in signing a refusal to testify form does not establish that petitioner was improperly deprived of his testimony (see, Matter of Boyd v. Coughlin, 220 A.D.2d 913, 632 N.Y.S.2d 684). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
CARPINELLO, Justice.
MIKOLL, J.P., and CASEY, PETERS and SPAIN, JJ., concur.
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: February 06, 1997
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)