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: Anthony CAMPISI, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner 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.
A correction officer observed petitioner in his cell with an altered heating mechanism, consisting of a large coffee can with a hot element and wire going into a plug device, which he apparently used as a hot pot. Petitioner initially refused the officer's order to turn over the item, but ultimately complied and then made a threatening comment as the officer left the area. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, making threats, possessing an altered item and altering an electrical device. He was found guilty of all charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony, supports the determination of guilt (see Matter of Roncini v. Goord, 18 A.D.3d 1086, 1087, 795 N.Y.S.2d 409 [2005]; Matter of Jamison v. Goord, 8 A.D.3d 860, 860, 778 N.Y.S.2d 567 [2004] ). Petitioner's claim of retaliation presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Brown v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 833, 834, 797 N.Y.S.2d 177 [2005]; Matter of Jamison v. Goord, supra at 860, 778 N.Y.S.2d 567). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner's assertion that the misbehavior report was deficient inasmuch as it contained the necessary information (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1[c] ) and was sufficiently particular to enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Sepe v. Goord, 1 A.D.3d 667, 667, 766 N.Y.S.2d 614 [2003]; Matter of Witherspoon v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 681, 726 N.Y.S.2d 297 [2001] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions are unpersuasive and do not warrant annulment of the determination.
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: November 03, 2005
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)