Torres v. Rasy

275 A.D.2d 851, 713 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9347
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 21, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 851 (Torres v. Rasy) 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
Torres v. Rasy, 275 A.D.2d 851, 713 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Com t, [852]*852entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting violent conduct, assault on staff, assault on inmates and creating a disturbance. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report as well as the eyewitness testimony of its author provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 271 AD2d 770). We also reject petitioner’s contention that the lack of endorsements from other correction officers on the misbehavior report renders the report defective. The record does not reveal that any other correction officers witnessed petitioner engaging in the conduct that formed the basis for the report. In any event, the record establishes that petitioner received a copy of the misbehavior report, the report adequately apprised him of the charges against him, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice resulted (see, Matter of Santana v Senkowski, 269 AD2d 638). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of Hearing Officer bias, are found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Graffeo and Rose, 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

Rosario v. Selsky
5 A.D.3d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 A.D.2d 851, 713 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-rasy-nyappdiv-2000.