Matter of Telesford v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Telesford v. Annucci

131 A.D.3d 753, 13 N.Y.S.3d 917

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

DecidedAugust 6, 2015

Docket519963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 753 (Matter of Telesford 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 Telesford v. Annucci, 131 A.D.3d 753, 13 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a search of petitioner’s cell, a correction officer found handwritten material containing gang-related references. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing gang-related material. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charge. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, written documentation that was recovered from petitioner’s cell and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Prack, 98 AD3d 780, 781 [2012]; Matter of Moore v Fischer, 76 AD3d 737, 737 [2010]). There is no merit to petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to independently assess the reliability of certain confidential information inasmuch as such information did not constitute evidence upon which the determination was based (see Matter of Horne v Fischer, 98 AD3d 788, 789 [2012]; Matter of Daniel v Fischer, 86 AD3d 892, 892 [2011]). Rather, the confidential information was the certification of the correction officer trained in deciphering gang-related references, and we find that his training and qualifications were adequately established without further inquiry by the Hearing Officer. We have considered petitioner’s remaining claims, including his challenge to the sufficiency of the videotape, and find them to be unavailing.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a search of petitioner’s cell, a correction officer found handwritten material containing gang-related references. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing gang-related material. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charge. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, written documentation that was recovered from petitioner’s cell and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Prack, 98 AD3d 780, 781 [2012]; Matter of Moore v Fischer, 76 AD3d 737, 737 [2010]). There is no merit to petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to independently assess the reliability of certain confidential information inasmuch as such information did not constitute evidence upon which the determination was based (see Matter of Horne v Fischer, 98 AD3d 788, 789 [2012]; Matter of Daniel v Fischer, 86 AD3d 892, 892 [2011]). Rather, the confidential information was the certification of the correction officer trained in deciphering gang-related references, and we find that his training and qualifications were adequately established without further inquiry by the Hearing Officer. We have considered petitioner’s remaining claims, including his challenge to the sufficiency of the videotape, and find them to be unavailing.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 753, 13 N.Y.S.3d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-telesford-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack