Callens v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Callens v. Goord

286 A.D.2d 811, 730 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8634

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 811 (Callens 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

Callens v. Goord, 286 A.D.2d 811, 730 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Rose, J. 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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged with, and ultimately found guilty of, violating the prison disciplinary rule against urging others to participate in a work stoppage. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending that the determination, based primarily on confidential information, is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree.

It is well settled that a disciplinary determination may be predicated upon hearsay confidential information provided it is [812]*812sufficiently detailed for the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of the informant’s reliability (see, Matter of Daise v Giambruno, 279 AD2d 911; Matter of Milland v Goord, 264 AD2d 846). We find that the confidential information provided here by anonymous informants was not sufficiently detailed or specific as to the charge to enable the Hearing Officer to independently assess their credibility (see, id.; Matter of Holmes v Senkowski, 238 AD2d 629). The remaining confidential information, while describing petitioner’s intimidating nature, was too vague to demonstrate that he urged others to participate in the work stoppage (see, Matter of Christian v Goord, 246 AD2d 930, 931). Inasmuch as the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer are based on the confidential information, we conclude that the determination of petitioner’s guilt is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and respondent is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record.

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

—Rose, J. 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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged with, and ultimately found guilty of, violating the prison disciplinary rule against urging others to participate in a work stoppage. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending that the determination, based primarily on confidential information, is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree.

It is well settled that a disciplinary determination may be predicated upon hearsay confidential information provided it is [812]*812sufficiently detailed for the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of the informant’s reliability (see, Matter of Daise v Giambruno, 279 AD2d 911; Matter of Milland v Goord, 264 AD2d 846). We find that the confidential information provided here by anonymous informants was not sufficiently detailed or specific as to the charge to enable the Hearing Officer to independently assess their credibility (see, id.; Matter of Holmes v Senkowski, 238 AD2d 629). The remaining confidential information, while describing petitioner’s intimidating nature, was too vague to demonstrate that he urged others to participate in the work stoppage (see, Matter of Christian v Goord, 246 AD2d 930, 931). Inasmuch as the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer are based on the confidential information, we conclude that the determination of petitioner’s guilt is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and respondent is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 811, 730 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callens-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack