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: Eric BAEZ, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of the Department 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 a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges a determination finding him guilty of possessing unauthorized organizational materials and committing a correspondence violation stemming from the discovery in petitioner's cell of letters which contained language suggesting petitioner's involvement in gang-related activities calling for violence by Latin gang members against inmates belonging to a Black gang. One letter, from a correspondent known to be a liaison between Latin gang members, also stated that the writer would forward information from petitioner to an inmate at another correctional facility. In our view, the misbehavior report and the contents of the confiscated letters, combined with the inferences that can be drawn therefrom (see, Matter of Phillips v. Goord, 252 A.D.2d 642, 675 N.Y.S.2d 200; Matter of Spencer v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 827, 828, 666 N.Y.S.2d 327, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 811, 671 N.Y.S.2d 715, 694 N.E.2d 884), provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Rivera v. Coombe, 231 A.D.2d 790, 647 N.Y.S.2d 128). Furthermore, we find that the misbehavior report, which noted that the letters at issue were available upon request, provided adequate notice of the charges against him.
Next, we reject petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer rendered a disposition in the middle of the hearing. A review of the disciplinary hearing transcript and the times noted therein reveals that the portions of the transcript are not in chronological order. Furthermore, even if preserved for our review (see, e.g., Matter of Holmes v. Coughlin, 206 A.D.2d 564, 615 N.Y.S.2d 1010, lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 861, 618 N.Y.S.2d 4, 642 N.E.2d 322), we reject petitioner's unsupported allegation that a telephone call received during the hearing instructed the Hearing Officer to find petitioner guilty. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been found to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: September 23, 1999
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)