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: Ricardo A. DI ROSE, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE 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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of failing to comply with facility correspondence procedures and soliciting services after he wrote a letter to a private investigator and proposed a business transaction unrelated to his incarceration.
Initially, we reject petitioner's claim that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The letter, which requested services from a private investigator in exchange for financial rewards, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing including petitioner's admission that he wrote the letter, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 119, 623 N.Y.S.2d 758, 647 N.E.2d 1266; Matter of Ellis v. Coombe, 253 A.D.2d 945, 679 N.Y.S.2d 714).
We also reject the contention that the misbehavior report was defective. The record demonstrates that the report was timely filed inasmuch as it was prepared on the day the investigating officer received the letter at issue (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1[a]; Matter of Todd v. Lacy, 256 A.D.2d 696, 681 N.Y.S.2d 799). Absent any showing of prejudice, the fact that the misbehavior report inadvertently recited the date of petitioner's letter as January 10, 1999 rather than December 10, 1998 is unavailing. The report specified the factual basis for the charges with sufficient particularity to enable petitioner to prepare a defense and petitioner was supplied with a copy of the letter (see, Matter of Porter v. Miller, 261 A.D.2d 747, 691 N.Y.S.2d 202; Matter of Alston v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 252 A.D.2d 697, 675 N.Y.S.2d 414).
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit or unpreserved for our review.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MERCURE, J.P.
CREW III, PETERS, CARPINELLO and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.
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: March 16, 2000
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)