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 FLYNN, Petitioner, v. Philip COOMBE Jr., as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
While an inmate at Downstate Correctional Facility in Ulster County, petitioner was served with a misbehavior report charging him with violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting creating a disturbance, refusing a direct order and organizing a demonstration. The report was written as a result of petitioner's conduct after food trays were not delivered to him and other inmates as scheduled. Petitioner was observed shaking his cell, shouting obscenities and encouraging other inmates to engage in disruptive behavior. Following a disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of all charges. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the adverse determination on the basis, inter alia, that it is not supported by substantial evidence, he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses and the Hearing Officer was biased.
Initially, we reject petitioner's claim that substantial evidence does not support the determination. While the record indicates that the Hearing Officer considered information provided by confidential informants without, inter alia, making an independent assessment of the informants' reliability, annulment is not required in light of the other evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Gardiner v. Senkowski, 234 A.D.2d 708, 651 N.Y.S.2d 640; Matter of Hernandez v. Coughlin, 206 A.D.2d 578, 579, 614 N.Y.S.2d 580, appeal dismissed, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1024, 623 N.Y.S.2d 179, 647 N.E.2d 451; Matter of Turner v. Coughlin, 186 A.D.2d 843, 588 N.Y.S.2d 812). The record demonstrates that the confidential information in question only related to background information concerning the incident and did not form the basis for the charges in the misbehavior report. Significantly, the author of the misbehavior report, the correction officer who witnessed the incident in question, testified concerning petitioner's conduct as described in the misbehavior report. This constituted substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination (see, Matter of James v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 848, 651 N.Y.S.2d 940). To the extent that petitioner's inmate witnesses contradicted his testimony, that presented a question of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Lashway v. Stinson, 226 A.D.2d 874, 640 N.Y.S.2d 659).
Likewise, we find no merit to petitioner's claim that he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the inmate witnesses he desired to call would not have given testimony redundant to that of the six inmate witnesses who did testify (see, Matter of Lewis v. Lacy, 233 A.D.2d 637, 650 N.Y.S.2d 45, 46). As to petitioner's request for witnesses from other correctional facilities, the witnesses did not have personal knowledge of the incident in question and their testimony was not relevant to the charges (see, Matter of Johnson v. Coombe, 228 A.D.2d 755, 756, 644 N.Y.S.2d 72, 73).
Finally, although petitioner has not preserved his claim of Hearing Officer bias (see, Matter of Giakoumelos v. Coughlin, 192 A.D.2d 998, 597 N.Y.S.2d 232, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 658, 604 N.Y.S.2d 557, 624 N.E.2d 695), we would nevertheless find this claim unavailing. Our review of the hearing transcript discloses that the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner (see, Matter of Robles v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 847, 651 N.Y.S.2d 933; Matter of Moore v. Coughlin, 222 A.D.2d 943, 636 N.Y.S.2d 141, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 812, 644 N.Y.S.2d 145, 666 N.E.2d 1059).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
CARDONA, Presiding Justice.
MERCURE, WHITE, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, 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: May 15, 1997
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)