Sime v. Department of Correctional Services

252 A.D.2d 692, 675 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 692 (Sime v. Department of Correctional Services) 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
Sime v. Department of Correctional Services, 252 A.D.2d 692, 675 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

[693]*693As a result of an incident in which a prison inmate was cut on the face, petitioner was found guilty of assaulting an inmate and engaging in violent conduct in violation of certain prison disciplinary rules. Among the evidence introduced against petitioner at the disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report and the annexed investigative report, both prepared by the same correction officer. According to the reports, the victim described his assailant as an inmate known as “Sisco” who matched petitioner’s physical description. After the victim identified petitioner in a photo array, petitioner was questioned and admitted to being in an area near the victim when the assault occurred. Also in evidence was a “kited” letter, dated the day of the assault, in which the writer referred to an attack on a fellow inmate. The letter was signed by “Sisco” and matched two samples of petitioner’s handwriting. This proof, coupled with the victim’s testimony, provides substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Burt v McGinnis, 249 AD2d 650; Matter of Kalwasinski v Senkowski, 244 AD2d 738; Matter of McGrue v Selsky, 236 AD2d 666), even though the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report did not witness the assault (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and White, 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

Related

Henley v. Goord
278 A.D.2d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Roman v. Goord
272 A.D.2d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Cobb v. Selsky
270 A.D.2d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.D.2d 692, 675 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sime-v-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-1998.