Johnson v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Coombe

271 A.D.2d 780, 707 N.Y.S.2d 251, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4220

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

DecidedApril 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 780 (Johnson v. Coombe) 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

Johnson v. Coombe, 271 A.D.2d 780, 707 N.Y.S.2d 251, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

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

Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges a tier III hearing finding him guilty of conspiring to escape. The evidence upon which the Hearing Officer relied included the misbehavior report, the testimony, as well as the confidential testimony, of the investigator who authored the misbehavior report and a comparison of the handwriting in the letter found detailing the plan to escape and petitioner’s guidance folder.

Petitioner contends that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence because there was no forensic analysis of the handwriting samples to prove that he wrote the letter. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the evidence relied upon provided substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt. It is well established that “the trier of fact (here, the Hearing Officer) may make his or her own comparison of handwriting samples in the absence of expert testimony on the subject” (Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 198 AD2d 726; see, Matter of Maldonado v Goord, 270 AD2d 742; Matter of Thomas v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 695, 696). “Thus, the handwriting samples alone * * * can form the basis for a determination of guilt * * * if there are [781]*781sufficient similarities between the two to comprise substantial evidence that they were written by the same person” (Matter of Smith v Coughlin, supra, at 726). Petitioner’s remaining claims, to the extent that they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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

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

Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges a tier III hearing finding him guilty of conspiring to escape. The evidence upon which the Hearing Officer relied included the misbehavior report, the testimony, as well as the confidential testimony, of the investigator who authored the misbehavior report and a comparison of the handwriting in the letter found detailing the plan to escape and petitioner’s guidance folder.

Petitioner contends that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence because there was no forensic analysis of the handwriting samples to prove that he wrote the letter. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the evidence relied upon provided substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt. It is well established that “the trier of fact (here, the Hearing Officer) may make his or her own comparison of handwriting samples in the absence of expert testimony on the subject” (Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 198 AD2d 726; see, Matter of Maldonado v Goord, 270 AD2d 742; Matter of Thomas v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 695, 696). “Thus, the handwriting samples alone * * * can form the basis for a determination of guilt * * * if there are [781]*781sufficient similarities between the two to comprise substantial evidence that they were written by the same person” (Matter of Smith v Coughlin, supra, at 726). Petitioner’s remaining claims, to the extent that they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 780, 707 N.Y.S.2d 251, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-coombe-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack