Kemp v. Goord

285 A.D.2d 943, 728 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7671
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 26, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 943 (Kemp 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
Kemp v. Goord, 285 A.D.2d 943, 728 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

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

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits conspiracy to assault another inmate. The misbehavior report, included in the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing, revealed that the reporting correction officer had received information from a confidential source indicating that petitioner, as the leader of an inmate gang, had issued an order directing other gang members to stab an inmate victim. Petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of this evidence is without merit. A prison disciplinary determination may be based upon confidential evidence, even though the inmate has not been given access to it, so long as the Hearing Officer has made an independent assessment of the reliability of both the information and its source (see, Matter of Abdur-[944]*944Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 119; Matter of Otero v Coughlin, 225 AD2d 841). Such an assessment was made here as the Hearing Officer personally interviewed both the confidential informant and the correction officer to whom the information was conveyed. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including those alleging procedural errors and Hearing Officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit (see, Matter of Shaird v Selsky, 268 AD2d 721, 722).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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

Gantt v. Girdich
1 A.D.2d 668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ward v. Murphy
302 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Miller v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
295 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 A.D.2d 943, 728 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemp-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.