Fish v. Burge

52 A.D.3d 1141, 862 N.Y.S.2d 391
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 1141 (Fish v. Burge) 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
Fish v. Burge, 52 A.D.3d 1141, 862 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After two small wires that were concealed with glue were found running along the floor and into petitioner’s prison cell, he was charged in a misbehavior report with possession of an item in a prohibited area, possession of an unauthorized item and misuse of state property. A tier II disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty of all charges. That determination was administratively affirmed, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer who discovered the wires, is sufficient to provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Adams v Goord, 45 AD3d 940, 940-941 [2007]). Further, the details of the misbehavior report were corroborated by the testimony of its author and the testimony of the other officer present when the wires were found. Petitioner’s assertions [1142]*1142that he was unaware that the wires were in his cell and that someone else placed, them there created credibility issues for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Ubaldo v Leclaire, 46 AD3d 975, 975 [2007]). To the extent preserved, petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claims that the misbehavior report was defective and the confiscated wires were not properly secured and documented, have been examined and found to be unavailing.

Peters, J.P, Spain, Lahtinen, Kane and Stein, 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

Hernandez v. Bezio
73 A.D.3d 1406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 1141, 862 N.Y.S.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fish-v-burge-nyappdiv-2008.