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: Richard VALENTIN, Petitioner, v. Glenn GOORD, as Commissioner of the 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 Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from encouraging others to participate in work stoppages. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
Among the evidence presented against petitioner at his disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report, testimony from a correction officer who took part in the investigation and information from confidential sources. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Medina v. Goord, 253 A.D.2d 973, 678 N.Y.S.2d 919). While it is true that the Hearing Officer did not personally interview the confidential sources, there was sufficiently detailed information from which he could properly assess their reliability (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 Colon v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 582, 584, 665 N.Y.S.2d 118). The testimony given by petitioner to the effect that he was not involved in any of the events for which he was being charged merely created an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Moore v. Goord, 253 A.D.2d 927, 928, 679 N.Y.S.2d 711, 712; Matter of Barreto v. Coombe, 238 A.D.2d 657, 656 N.Y.S.2d 969).
Lastly, we have examined petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report failed to give him adequate notice of the charge against him and have found it to be unpreserved for our review (see, Matter of Wyche v. Coughlin, 191 A.D.2d 945, 946, 594 N.Y.S.2d 909, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 651, 601 N.Y.S.2d 581, 619 N.E.2d 659).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
PETERS, J.
MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, CREW III and YESAWICH JR., JJ., concur.
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 18, 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)