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: Jordan SHICON, 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 a prison disciplinary rule.
Correction officials obtained confidential information that petitioner was a high ranking member of the Bloods gang and had ordered hits to take place on certain cell blocks against other inmates and security personnel. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in unauthorized organizational activities. He was found guilty of this charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Contrary to petitioner's claim, substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it taken by the Hearing Officer in camera provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Riley v. Goord, 22 A.D.3d 925, 925, 802 N.Y.S.2d 524 [2005]; Matter of Fludd v. Goord, 18 A.D.3d 929, 930, 794 N.Y.S.2d 499 [2005] ). The Hearing Officer made adequate inquiries of the correction officer who prepared the misbehavior report to ascertain the reliability and credibility of the information supplied by the confidential informants and was not required to independently interview such individuals (see Matter of Pabon v. Goord, 6 A.D.3d 833, 834, 773 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2004]; Matter of Concepcion v. Selsky, 1 A.D.3d 685, 685-686, 766 N.Y.S.2d 921 [2003] ). Furthermore, petitioner failed to preserve his claim of hearing officer bias by objecting at the hearing (see Matter of Lunney v. Goord, 24 A.D.3d 1135, 807 N.Y.S.2d 196 [2005] ) and, even if we were to consider it, we would find it to be without merit as there is no indication that the determination at issue flowed from any alleged bias (see id. at 1136, 807 N.Y.S.2d 196; Matter of Porter v. Goord, 21 A.D.3d 1241, 1241, 801 N.Y.S.2d 634 [2005] ).
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: March 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)