Bosquet v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bosquet v. Johnson

255 A.D.2d 958, 679 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12216

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was found guilty after a Tier II hearing of violating inmate rules 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i] [refusing to obey a direct order]) and 109.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [10] [iii] [movement violation]). The determination of the Hearing Officer is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616). The contention of petitioner that the charges were brought against him to retaliate for the filing of a complaint or grievance against a correction officer presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Bramble v Mead, 242 AD2d 858, 858-859, lv denied 91 NY2d 803).

We reject the contention of petitioner that he did not receive a fair and impartial hearing. The Hearing Officer did not deny petitioner the right to explain his version of the incident, and there is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from such bias (see, Matter of Hooper v Goord, 247 AD2d 884). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that [959] they lack merit. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Punch, J.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was found guilty after a Tier II hearing of violating inmate rules 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i] [refusing to obey a direct order]) and 109.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [10] [iii] [movement violation]). The determination of the Hearing Officer is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616). The contention of petitioner that the charges were brought against him to retaliate for the filing of a complaint or grievance against a correction officer presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Bramble v Mead, 242 AD2d 858, 858-859, lv denied 91 NY2d 803).

We reject the contention of petitioner that he did not receive a fair and impartial hearing. The Hearing Officer did not deny petitioner the right to explain his version of the incident, and there is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from such bias (see, Matter of Hooper v Goord, 247 AD2d 884). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that [959] they lack merit. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Punch, J.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

Bosquet v. Johnson, 255 A.D.2d 958, 679 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 958 (Bosquet v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related