Tarbell v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tarbell v. Senkowski

257 A.D.2d 875, 682 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 488

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 875 (Tarbell 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

Tarbell v. Senkowski, 257 A.D.2d 875, 682 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

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 respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits inmates from verbally harassing a facility employee. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was a detailed misbehavior report relating that petitioner demanded to talk to a correctional facility nurse as she walked past his cell to conduct a sick call for another inmate. The nurse who authored the report testified that when she informed petitioner that she had not received his request for a sick call, petitioner loudly stated, i£You’ve got an attitude bitch. Do your job”. In our view, this proof and the corroborating testimony of a correction officer who heard petitioner make the statements were sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Harrell v O’Keefe, 241 AD2d 616). The conflicting testimony of petitioner and his inmate witness merely presented a credibility issue which was appropriately resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Purdy v Senkowski, 242 AD2d 804). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contention that the Hearing Officer was biased and find it to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., [876]*876concur. 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 respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits inmates from verbally harassing a facility employee. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was a detailed misbehavior report relating that petitioner demanded to talk to a correctional facility nurse as she walked past his cell to conduct a sick call for another inmate. The nurse who authored the report testified that when she informed petitioner that she had not received his request for a sick call, petitioner loudly stated, i£You’ve got an attitude bitch. Do your job”. In our view, this proof and the corroborating testimony of a correction officer who heard petitioner make the statements were sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Harrell v O’Keefe, 241 AD2d 616). The conflicting testimony of petitioner and his inmate witness merely presented a credibility issue which was appropriately resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Purdy v Senkowski, 242 AD2d 804). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contention that the Hearing Officer was biased and find it to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., [876]*876concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 875, 682 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarbell-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack