Alamin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alamin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

252 A.D.2d 824, 675 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8601

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 824 (Alamin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alamin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 252 A.D.2d 824, 675 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—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 Department of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with violating prison disciplinary rules which preclude refusing a direct order, abusive or obscene language, interference with a prison employee and making threats. After a tier II hearing, petitioner was found guilty of interference with a prison employee and using abusive language. This CPLR article 78 proceeding follows the denial of petitioner’s administrative appeal.

Our examination of the misbehavior report discloses that it was sufficiently detailed to adequately inform petitioner of the charges so that he could prepare a defense (see, Matter of Eck[825]*825ert v Selsky, 247 AD2d 728; Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 234 AD2d 663). Petitioner nevertheless claims that he was denied due process because the misbehavior report that was before the Hearing Officer contained the signatures of the author of the report and a correction officer who witnessed the incident, whereas petitioner’s copy only contained the author’s signature. We reject this claim as petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the absence of the witness’s signature (see, Matter of Ray v Coughlin, 226 AD2d 846; Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 170 AD2d 845). In any event, any possible prejudice was negated by the fact that the discrepancy was brought to petitioner’s attention at the commencement of the hearing and he was afforded an opportunity to call both signatories as witnesses.

Turning to substantive issues, inasmuch as the misbehavior report is sufficiently relevant and probative, we conclude that the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—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 Department of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with violating prison disciplinary rules which preclude refusing a direct order, abusive or obscene language, interference with a prison employee and making threats. After a tier II hearing, petitioner was found guilty of interference with a prison employee and using abusive language. This CPLR article 78 proceeding follows the denial of petitioner’s administrative appeal.

Our examination of the misbehavior report discloses that it was sufficiently detailed to adequately inform petitioner of the charges so that he could prepare a defense (see, Matter of Eck[825]*825ert v Selsky, 247 AD2d 728; Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 234 AD2d 663). Petitioner nevertheless claims that he was denied due process because the misbehavior report that was before the Hearing Officer contained the signatures of the author of the report and a correction officer who witnessed the incident, whereas petitioner’s copy only contained the author’s signature. We reject this claim as petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the absence of the witness’s signature (see, Matter of Ray v Coughlin, 226 AD2d 846; Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 170 AD2d 845). In any event, any possible prejudice was negated by the fact that the discrepancy was brought to petitioner’s attention at the commencement of the hearing and he was afforded an opportunity to call both signatories as witnesses.

Turning to substantive issues, inasmuch as the misbehavior report is sufficiently relevant and probative, we conclude that the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 824, 675 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alamin-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack