Santiago v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Senkowski

270 A.D.2d 549, 704 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2372

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 549 (Santiago v. Senkowski) 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

Santiago v. Senkowski, 270 A.D.2d 549, 704 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

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 Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

[550]*550Following a disciplinary hearing petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violent conduct, bribery and making threats. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination, contending, inter alia, that the misbehavior report should have been dismissed because it was written one day after the alleged incident. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, there is no requirement that the report be prepared the day of the incident (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [a]; see also, Matter of Greene v Coombe, 242 AD2d 796, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). We also reject petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report does not constitute sufficient evidence of his guilt. The misbehavior report, which was authored by an eyewitness to the event, was sufficient to substantiate the alleged misconduct (see, Matter of Dexter v Goord, 257 AD2d 936). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, 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 Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

[550]*550Following a disciplinary hearing petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violent conduct, bribery and making threats. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination, contending, inter alia, that the misbehavior report should have been dismissed because it was written one day after the alleged incident. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, there is no requirement that the report be prepared the day of the incident (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [a]; see also, Matter of Greene v Coombe, 242 AD2d 796, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). We also reject petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report does not constitute sufficient evidence of his guilt. The misbehavior report, which was authored by an eyewitness to the event, was sufficient to substantiate the alleged misconduct (see, Matter of Dexter v Goord, 257 AD2d 936). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 549, 704 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack