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: Frederick ALSTON, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.
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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
During a review of inmate correspondence, a correction officer found a letter written by petitioner to his brother, who was housed in another correctional facility, in which he stated his intent to kill an informant and another person, and enlisted his brother's help. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats and violating facility correspondence procedures. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal, with a reduction in the penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the letter written by petitioner, as well as petitioner's admission that he authored the letter, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Surdis v. Walsh, 295 A.D.2d 735, 736, 743 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2002]; Matter of Burgess v. Goord, 269 A.D.2d 722, 722-723, 704 N.Y.S.2d 671 [2000] ). Petitioner's assertion that the threats were not real and that he was only joking with his brother presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 855, 855, 797 N.Y.S.2d 167 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 711, 804 N.Y.S.2d 35, 837 N.E.2d 734 [2005]; Matter of Moore v. Goord, 16 A.D.3d 800, 800, 790 N.Y.S.2d 772 [2005] ). Finally, given that petitioner was not illiterate, non-English speaking, sensorially disabled, charged with drug use or confined pending the hearing, he was not entitled to an employee assistant pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-4.1(a) (see Matter of Miller v. Goord, 2 A.D.3d 928, 929, 767 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2003]; Matter of Santiago v. Selsky, 288 A.D.2d 732, 732 N.Y.S.2d 740 [2001] ).
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: January 05, 2006
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)