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: Anthony WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. David NAPOLI, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits making threats. A tier II disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which the Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the determination of guilt.
We confirm. The misbehavior report and the testimony of the authoring correction officer constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see Matter of Frazier v. Artus, 40 A.D.3d 1288, 836 N.Y.S.2d 352 [2007] ). Although “evidence of past grievances petitioner had filed against the same correction officer who authored the misbehavior report” plainly was relevant to petitioner's retaliation defense (Matter of Perkins v. Goord, 257 A.D.2d 821, 822, 684 N.Y.S.2d 304 [1999] ), the Hearing Officer stipulated that petitioner previously had filed a grievance against the authoring correction officer. The Hearing Officer's refusal to produce a copy of the actual grievance, which petitioner admittedly possessed, or to permit testimony as to the substance of the underlying grievance does not warrant reversal (see Matter of Edwards v. Goord, 11 A.D.3d 832, 833, 783 N.Y.S.2d 317 [2004] ). Petitioner's claim of retaliation presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Davis v. Goord, 34 A.D.3d 1027, 824 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2006] ), and petitioner's requested witnesses properly were denied in light of the fact that they had no first-hand knowledge of the underlying incident (see Matter of Smith v. Portuondo, 309 A.D.2d 1028, 1029, 766 N.Y.S.2d 154 [2003] ). Finally, a review of the hearing transcript fails to support petitioner's claim of bias (see Matter of Harvey v. Woods, 56 A.D.3d 829, 830, 867 N.Y.S.2d 741 [2008] ).
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: April 23, 2009
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)