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: Kevin BAILEY, Petitioner, v. James J. WALSH, as Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier II hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of refusing a direct order, making false statements, making threats and misusing property in violation of prison disciplinary rules. The charges stemmed from an incident during which petitioner, a clerk in the facility's law library, refused to comply with a correction officer's directive that he print and delete his personal legal work from the law library computer. Upon administrative review, respondent upheld the determination, prompting petitioner to commence this proceeding.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the authoring correction officer and an inmate witness who was present during the incident, provide substantial evidence in support of the determination (see Matter of Modlenaar v. Goord, 21 A.D.3d 1190, 1190-1191, 800 N.Y.S.2d 859 [2005]; Matter of Smith v. Portuondo, 309 A.D.2d 1028, 1029, 766 N.Y.S.2d 154 [2003] ). To the extent that petitioner argues that the charges were brought against him in retaliation for his filing of grievances, the record contains no support for this proposition and, in any event, the Hearing Officer was free to credit the hearing testimony which supported the validity of the charges (see Matter of Brown v. Goord, 17 A.D.3d 952, 952, 793 N.Y.S.2d 636 [2005] ). Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the misbehavior report adequately apprised him of the charges, the date and time of the incident, and provided a sufficient description of the incident to afford him the ability to prepare a defense (see Matter of Kalwasinski v. Goord, 25 A.D.3d 1050, 1050-1051, 810 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2006]; Matter of Smith v. Portuondo, supra at 1028, 766 N.Y.S.2d 154). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be also without 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: July 27, 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)