Opinion
2012-05-17
In the Matter of Dupree HARRIS, Petitioner, v. Joseph T. SMITH, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Dupree Harris, Wallkill, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Dupree Harris, Wallkill, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent*919 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
A correction officer heard a commotion from behind him while a group of inmates were returning to their cells. When he turned around, he observed petitioner and another inmate in close contact exchanging words and clenching their fists. He noticed that the other inmate had a torn shirt with blood on it and his hand was bleeding. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduct, and he was found guilty of the charge following a tier II disciplinary hearing. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified that he observed petitioner and the other inmate engaged in a standoff after exchanging words and believed that they had had a physical altercation. This testimony, together with the detailed misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Garcia v. Bertone, 91 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 936 N.Y.S.2d 919 [2012]; Matter of Green v. Bradt, 79 A.D.3d 1566, 1567, 914 N.Y.S.2d 739 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 709, 2011 WL 1237573 [2010] ). Petitioner's testimony and that of the other inmate that there was no physical altercation between the two presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Williams v. Fischer, 89 A.D.3d 1333, 1333, 932 N.Y.S.2d 915 [2011]; Matter of Barnes v. Prack, 87 A.D.3d 1216, 1217, 930 N.Y.S.2d 291 [2011] ). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb respondent's determination.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.