Almonte v. Goord

295 A.D.2d 715, 743 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6165
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 715 (Almonte v. Goord) 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
Almonte v. Goord, 295 A.D.2d 715, 743 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from soliciting others to smuggle contraband into a correctional facility. As related in the misbehavior report, confidential information was presented to correction officers indicating that petitioner had been communicating with certain individuals outside the facility, asking them to bring him razor blades and handcuff keys the next time they visited so that he would be able to carry out an assault on another inmate.

Our in camera review of the record leads us to conclude that the determination of petitioner’s guilt was supported by substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report and the transcript of a taped interview conducted by the Hearing Officer with a correction officer who had received the confidential information and the corroborating physical evidence (see, Matter of Colon v Goord, 245 AD2d 582, 584; Matter of Feliciano v Selsky, 239 AD2d 799). A prison disciplinary determination may be based upon confidential information provided that the Hearing Officer has made an independent assessment of its reliability, as was done in this matter (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 119; Matter of Gardiner v Senkowski, 234 AD2d 708). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertions of Hearing Officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, 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

Related

Ricco v. Goord
4 A.D.3d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Simpson v. Goord
308 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Anderson v. Goord
299 A.D.2d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Moore v. Miller
298 A.D.2d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
295 A.D.2d 715, 743 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almonte-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.