Opinion
527405
03-07-2019
In the Matter of Robert COFFEY, Petitioner, v. Jaifa COLLADO, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Robert Coffey, Wallkill, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondents.
Robert Coffey, Wallkill, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination by respondent Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats and harassment. According to the report, a correction officer was conducting rounds and approached petitioner's cell, and petitioner became verbally abusive and told the officer to "crack my cell so we can settle this." Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who was involved in the incident and wrote the report provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Brown v. Venettozzi, 162 A.D.3d 1434, 1435, 81 N.Y.S.3d 243 [2018] ; Matter of Wigfall v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 160 A.D.3d 1332, 1333, 75 N.Y.S.3d 341 [2018] ). Petitioner's contention that the report was fabricated in retaliation for a grievance that he had filed against its author presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Scott v. Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1553, 1553, 84 N.Y.S.3d 279 [2018] ; Matter of Telesford v. Annucci, 145 A.D.3d 1304, 1305, 44 N.Y.S.3d 243 [2016] ).
As to petitioner's procedural issues, we reject his claim that he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses, insofar as the requested witnesses had no firsthand knowledge of the incident in question and, to the extent they had information regarding his retaliation claim, that information was redundant in light of the other evidence submitted on that issue (see Matter of Cahill v. Prack, 106 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 964 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2013] ; Matter of Rosales v. Pratt, 98 A.D.3d 764, 765, 949 N.Y.S.2d 820 [2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 816, 2012 WL 5309615 [2012] ). Further, inasmuch as the record reflects that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner with no evidence that the determination of guilt flowed from any alleged bias, we reject petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer should have recused himself from the matter due to petitioner naming him in an unrelated lawsuit (see Matter of Partee v. Bezio, 67 A.D.3d 1224, 1225, 890 N.Y.S.2d 139 [2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 702, 2010 WL 520876 [2010] ; Matter of Burgess v. Goord, 34 A.D.3d 948, 949, 823 N.Y.S.2d 312 [2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 813, 836 N.Y.S.2d 552, 868 N.E.2d 235 [2007] ; Matter of Chavis v. Goord, 8 A.D.3d 786, 787, 777 N.Y.S.2d 918 [2004] ). Petitioner's remaining claims have been considered and found to be without merit.
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.