Rivera v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Coombe

240 A.D.2d 830, 659 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549

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

DecidedJune 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 830 (Rivera 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

Rivera v. Coombe, 240 A.D.2d 830, 659 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting assaults on other inmates and violent conduct. He challenges the determination on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The evidence relied upon by the Hearing Officer included the eyewitness testimony of a confidential informant who identified petitioner as the individual slashing the face and throat of a fellow inmate with a razor blade. Prior to admitting this informant’s testimony, the Hearing Officer personally interviewed the informant, making the requisite independent assessment of his credibility (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123). Such testimony was consistent with both the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer on duty at the time of the incident. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Rentas v Coughlin, 167 AD2d 686). That petitioner presented countervailing testimony simply presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Burgos v Coughlin, 216 AD2d 705).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Spain and Carpinello, 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 Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting assaults on other inmates and violent conduct. He challenges the determination on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The evidence relied upon by the Hearing Officer included the eyewitness testimony of a confidential informant who identified petitioner as the individual slashing the face and throat of a fellow inmate with a razor blade. Prior to admitting this informant’s testimony, the Hearing Officer personally interviewed the informant, making the requisite independent assessment of his credibility (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123). Such testimony was consistent with both the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer on duty at the time of the incident. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Rentas v Coughlin, 167 AD2d 686). That petitioner presented countervailing testimony simply presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Burgos v Coughlin, 216 AD2d 705).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 830, 659 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack