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: Robert A. LAWRENCE, Petitioner, v. Frank HEADLEY, as Superintendent of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, 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.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination finding him guilty of harassment and two counts of creating a disturbance as charged in two misbehavior reports. As related by the first misbehavior report, petitioner played his radio in a loud manner without using his headphones; the second misbehavior report alleged that petitioner yelled a remark, using obscene language, after observing a correction officer writing misbehavior reports. Notwithstanding petitioner's contention to the contrary, the detailed misbehavior reports and corroborating testimony presented at the hearing provided substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's misconduct (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477). Any alleged inconsistencies in the testimony presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Campbell v. Goord, 254 A.D.2d 590, 590-591, 679 N.Y.S.2d 721, 722). While petitioner alleged that the misbehavior reports were written in retaliation for the grievance he had filed against the correction officer, the Hearing Officer, resolving an issue of credibility (see, Matter of Moncrieffe v. Bennett, 251 A.D.2d 925, 673 N.Y.S.2d 949), noted that the lapse of time between the grievance and the issuance of the misbehavior reports made any such claim unlikely. Furthermore, we find petitioner's contention of Hearing Officer bias to be unavailing. The fact that the Hearing Officer resolved issues of credibility against petitioner and may have made various brusque comments to petitioner during the hearing is not indicative of bias (see, 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; Matter of Barnhill v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 719, 721, 657 N.Y.S.2d 492). In any event, petitioner failed to establish that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias (see, id.). To the extent that petitioner's remaining contentions are preserved for our review, we find them 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: January 14, 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)