Matter of Al-Matin v. Prack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Al-Matin v. Prack

131 A.D.3d 1293, 16 N.Y.S.3d 96

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

DecidedSeptember 3, 2015

Docket520029

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1293 (Matter of Al-Matin v. Prack) 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

Matter of Al-Matin v. Prack, 131 A.D.3d 1293, 16 N.Y.S.3d 96 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.P.

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 Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an investigation into allegations in a memorandum from the correctional facility Imam regarding petitioner’s conduct, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats, attempted extortion, conduct involving threats of violence, engaging in conduct detrimental to the order of the facility, making an unauthorized address and interfering with an employee. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. On administrative appeal, the determination was modified and the charges of attempted extortion, interfering with an employee and making an unauthorized address were dismissed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, we reject petitioner’s claim that the hearing was untimely. The record reflects that numerous extensions were properly sought and granted to commence and complete the hearing. However, assuming petitioner’s claims that extensions were requested after a previous extension expired are true, we have repeatedly held that regulatory time limits are directory, not mandatory (see Matter of De La Cruz v Bezio, 107 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2013]; Matter of Senior v Fischer, 98 AD3d 783, 784 [2012]). The sufficiently detailed misbehavior report, the hearing testimony and the confidential testimony and information provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Hayward v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2012]). The Hearing Officer’s interview with the investigating sergeant and his review of the confidential information allowed him to independently assess its credibility and reliability (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 113 AD3d 977, 977-978 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 905 [2014]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

*1294 McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., 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

Lahtinen, J.P.

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 Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an investigation into allegations in a memorandum from the correctional facility Imam regarding petitioner’s conduct, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats, attempted extortion, conduct involving threats of violence, engaging in conduct detrimental to the order of the facility, making an unauthorized address and interfering with an employee. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. On administrative appeal, the determination was modified and the charges of attempted extortion, interfering with an employee and making an unauthorized address were dismissed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, we reject petitioner’s claim that the hearing was untimely. The record reflects that numerous extensions were properly sought and granted to commence and complete the hearing. However, assuming petitioner’s claims that extensions were requested after a previous extension expired are true, we have repeatedly held that regulatory time limits are directory, not mandatory (see Matter of De La Cruz v Bezio, 107 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2013]; Matter of Senior v Fischer, 98 AD3d 783, 784 [2012]). The sufficiently detailed misbehavior report, the hearing testimony and the confidential testimony and information provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Hayward v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2012]). The Hearing Officer’s interview with the investigating sergeant and his review of the confidential information allowed him to independently assess its credibility and reliability (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 113 AD3d 977, 977-978 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 905 [2014]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

*1294 McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 1293, 16 N.Y.S.3d 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-al-matin-v-prack-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack