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: Alberto VARELA, 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 Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from engaging in violent conduct, assaulting staff and refusing a search or frisk. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner was ordered to the wall for a pat frisk after a correction officer observed that he appeared to have something concealed down the back of his pants. During the frisk, the correction officer stated that petitioner moved his hand and elbow away from the wall in a quick and “aggressive” movement and petitioner had to be physically restrained until help arrived. A legal folder with papers was found stuffed down petitioner's pants. Petitioner's administrative appeal of the determination of guilt was unsuccessful and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. In our view, the misbehavior report, combined with petitioner's own testimony and the testimony of the correction officers involved in the incident, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477). While petitioner claimed that he was only frisked as a form of harassment and that he was assaulted by correction officers without provocation, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v. Portuondo, 247 A.D.2d 810, 811, 669 N.Y.S.2d 403). Petitioner's remaining arguments, including his claim that the Hearing Officer was biased, have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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 24, 1999
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)