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: Damecha HARRIS, Petitioner, v. Jeff FLETCHER, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the loss of state property because he was not in possession of his state-issued razor. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The misbehavior report, the razor issue log and memorandum from the author of the misbehavior report provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Hemphill v. Selsky, 26 A.D.3d 548, 808 N.Y.S.2d 503 [2006] ). Although petitioner testified that he surrendered the razor prior to leaving the correctional facility for the court appearance, this evidence, which conflicted with the information in the memorandum and razor log, presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Williams v. Ricks, 303 A.D.2d 860, 861, 755 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2003]; Matter of Knowles v. Coombe, 236 A.D.2d 659, 653 N.Y.S.2d 437 [1997] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the record establishes that the determination of guilt was a result of the evidence presented and not from any alleged bias on the part of respondent Hearing Officer (see Matter of Costello v. Smith, 26 A.D.3d 566, 807 N.Y.S.2d 724 [2006] ). To the extent that petitioner claims that he was precluded from introducing documentary evidence in support of his defense, the issue is raised for the first time in this proceeding and, therefore, it is not preserved for our review (see Matter of Horton v. Allard, 25 A.D.3d 1048, 810 N.Y.S.2d 226 [2006] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
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: June 29, 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)