From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rivera v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 9, 1999
264 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

September 9, 1999

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Francisco Rivera, Dannemora, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Nancy A. Spiegel of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, MERCURE, YESAWICH JR. and PETERS, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Following a tier II hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from being out of place. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner was told to stand on a platform; however, the author of the misbehavior report later saw him standing in the smoking area socializing. Petitioner's administrative appeal of the determination of guilt was unsuccessful, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding which we now confirm. Contrary to petitioner's argument, the misbehavior report and the testimony adduced at the hearing provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966). Although petitioner gave various exculpatory explanations for his behavior, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v. Portuondo, 247 A.D.2d 810, 811). Next, we have examined petitioner's allegations of Hearing Officer bias and find them to be unsubstantiated in the record. In any event, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Di Rose v. Coombe, 233 A.D.2d 799). Contrary to petitioner's argument, he was not entitled to an assistant to aid in his defense under the circumstances pertaining to his tier II hearing (see generally, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1) and he has failed to demonstrate that this policy is unconstitutional. We have examined petitioner's remaining claims, including his assertion that he was improperly denied the right to call relevant witnesses, and find them to be without merit.

CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, MERCURE, YESAWICH JR. and PETERS, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Rivera v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 9, 1999
264 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Rivera v. Senkowski

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FRANCISCO RIVERA, Petitioner, v. DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 9, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
695 N.Y.S.2d 615

Citing Cases

Matter of Webb v. McGinnis

Initially we reject petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer removed him from the hearing. A review…

Matter of Booker v. Rivera

There is no question that petitioner was not entitled under the applicable regulatory provisions to an…