Matter of Richardson v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Richardson v. Annucci

133 A.D.3d 966, 18 N.Y.S.3d 569

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket520618

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 966 (Matter of Richardson v. Annucci) 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 Richardson v. Annucci, 133 A.D.3d 966, 18 N.Y.S.3d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*967 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Two correction officers were physically assaulted by a group of inmates at the correctional facility where petitioner was incarcerated. During the investigation that ensued, petitioner was identified as one of the inmates involved. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff, creating a disturbance, interfering with an employee and refusing a direct order. At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of all of the charges except for refusing a direct order. The determination was later upheld on administrative appeal and the penalty was modified. This CPLR article 78 proceeding followed.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, related documentation, testimony of the correction officers involved in the incident and that of the sergeant who investigated it, as well as the confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cruz v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2012]; Matter of Gonzalez v Prack, 62 AD3d 1220, 1220 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report contained sufficiently detailed information to apprise him of the nature of the charges and enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Quezada v Fischer, 113 AD3d 1004, 1004 [2014]; Matter of Wallace v Prack, 93 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2012]). Furthermore, the record discloses that petitioner was permitted to call numerous inmate witnesses to testify that he was not involved in the incident, and we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of additional inmate witnesses whose testimony would have been redundant (see Matter of White v Fischer, 121 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2014]; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find that they are also lacking in merit.

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, 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

*967 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Two correction officers were physically assaulted by a group of inmates at the correctional facility where petitioner was incarcerated. During the investigation that ensued, petitioner was identified as one of the inmates involved. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff, creating a disturbance, interfering with an employee and refusing a direct order. At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of all of the charges except for refusing a direct order. The determination was later upheld on administrative appeal and the penalty was modified. This CPLR article 78 proceeding followed.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, related documentation, testimony of the correction officers involved in the incident and that of the sergeant who investigated it, as well as the confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cruz v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2012]; Matter of Gonzalez v Prack, 62 AD3d 1220, 1220 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report contained sufficiently detailed information to apprise him of the nature of the charges and enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Quezada v Fischer, 113 AD3d 1004, 1004 [2014]; Matter of Wallace v Prack, 93 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2012]). Furthermore, the record discloses that petitioner was permitted to call numerous inmate witnesses to testify that he was not involved in the incident, and we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of additional inmate witnesses whose testimony would have been redundant (see Matter of White v Fischer, 121 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2014]; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find that they are also lacking in merit.

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 966, 18 N.Y.S.3d 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-richardson-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack