Jackson v. LeFevre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. LeFevre

128 A.D.2d 1001, 513 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44652

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 1001 (Jackson v. LeFevre) 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

Jackson v. LeFevre, 128 A.D.2d 1001, 513 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoney, P. J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility when, on November 4, 1985, he was served with a misbehavior report charging him with fighting, assault with a weapon and possession of contraband. After a Superintendent’s proceeding, petitioner was found guilty of the charges and a penalty of six months in keeplock, loss of 90 days of good time and loss of certain privileges was imposed. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging such determination, and the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition.

The correction officer who issued the misbehavior report testified at the Superintendent’s proceeding that he saw petitioner fighting with an inmate named White. He testified that he saw petitioner carrying an object which appeared to be a homemade weapon and that, when approached, petitioner threw the object over a fence. A shank that was later found at the scene was identified by the correction officer to be the object petitioner was carrying. Also, it was established that White was hospitalized with puncture wounds. In opposition, petitioner offered his own testimony and that of White. Such evidence presented an issue of witness credibility for respondent to resolve (see, Matter of Cunningham v Coughlin, 97 AD2d 930, 931). The testimony of petitioner and White was inconsistent and it was not unreasonable for respondent to discredit such testimony. The evidence offered against petitioner, if believed, supports the administrative determination.

Lastly, we reject petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer should have further investigated the charges. Petitioner received inmate assistance and he voiced no complaint about such assistance. Further, the Hearing Officer had no obligation to present petitioner’s case for him.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Mahoney, P. J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility when, on November 4, 1985, he was served with a misbehavior report charging him with fighting, assault with a weapon and possession of contraband. After a Superintendent’s proceeding, petitioner was found guilty of the charges and a penalty of six months in keeplock, loss of 90 days of good time and loss of certain privileges was imposed. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging such determination, and the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition.

The correction officer who issued the misbehavior report testified at the Superintendent’s proceeding that he saw petitioner fighting with an inmate named White. He testified that he saw petitioner carrying an object which appeared to be a homemade weapon and that, when approached, petitioner threw the object over a fence. A shank that was later found at the scene was identified by the correction officer to be the object petitioner was carrying. Also, it was established that White was hospitalized with puncture wounds. In opposition, petitioner offered his own testimony and that of White. Such evidence presented an issue of witness credibility for respondent to resolve (see, Matter of Cunningham v Coughlin, 97 AD2d 930, 931). The testimony of petitioner and White was inconsistent and it was not unreasonable for respondent to discredit such testimony. The evidence offered against petitioner, if believed, supports the administrative determination.

Lastly, we reject petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer should have further investigated the charges. Petitioner received inmate assistance and he voiced no complaint about such assistance. Further, the Hearing Officer had no obligation to present petitioner’s case for him.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 1001, 513 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-lefevre-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack