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: Steven COLLAZO, Petitioner, v. Daniel SENKOWSKI, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the administrative determination finding him guilty of violating the inmate disciplinary rules against harassment, interfering with an employee and refusing a direct order. The misbehavior report relates that petitioner disregarded the initial order of a facility nurse to stay behind the red line in the holding room. Thereafter, petitioner was heard making derogatory remarks, at which point the nurse ordered petitioner removed from the holding room. The detailed misbehavior report, written by the facility nurse involved in the incident, is sufficient, by itself, to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt on all charges (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477; Matter of Harrell v. O'Keefe, 241 A.D.2d 616, 660 N.Y.S.2d 1009). Although petitioner offered a differing version of the events and claimed that the remarks were not directed at the nurse at issue and presented witnesses to that effect, it was for the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of the evidence presented (see, Matter of Morales v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 549, 705 N.Y.S.2d 303; Matter of Tarbell v. Senkowski, 257 A.D.2d 875, 682 N.Y.S.2d 645).
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 12, 2001
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)