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: Patrick HAYES, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.
During a monitored telephone conversation, petitioner instructed his wife to bring drugs into the correctional facility during a planned visit and also had her make a three-way call. When petitioner's wife was confronted by correction officials during her visit, she voluntarily surrendered two balloons that she had concealed in her genital area and was arrested on various charges. The contents of the balloons tested positive for cocaine and marihuana. Petitioner was subsequently charged in a misbehavior report with conspiring to introduce drugs into the facility, smuggling and making a third-party telephone call. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the transcript of the monitored telephone conversation and documentary evidence, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cooper v. Selsky, 9 A.D.3d 763, 764, 779 N.Y.S.2d 855 [2004]; Matter of Taylor v. Poole, 297 A.D.2d 866, 866, 746 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2002] ). Petitioner's assertion that he had nothing to do with smuggling drugs into the facility presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Gee v. Goord, 21 A.D.3d 636, 637, 800 N.Y.S.2d 775 [2005] ). Moreover, while petitioner objected to the Deputy Superintendent acting as the Hearing Officer, the Deputy Superintendent explained that he was not involved in the investigation and that his only knowledge of the incident was that a visitor had been arrested. We reject petitioner's argument that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Harris v. Selsky, 15 A.D.3d 708, 709, 788 N.Y.S.2d 714 [2005] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review.
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: February 02, 2006
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)