From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heard v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 2, 2017
155 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

524400.

11-02-2017

In the Matter of Antonio HEARD, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Antonio Heard, Dannemora, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Antonio Heard, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During the course of an investigation in which confidential information was received, correction officials learned that petitioner, together with another inmate who had conspired with petitioner, was a distributer of suboxone within the facility. Following a drug-related assault on petitioner's coconspirator, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling and conspiring to sell drugs within the facility. At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. On administrative appeal, the determination of guilt was upheld, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of its author and the confidential testimony and documentation considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Chadwick v. NYSDOCCS Washington Corr. Facility Supt., 148 A.D.3d 1437, 1438, 50 N.Y.S.3d 188 [2017] ; Matter of Jones v. Prack, 114 A.D.3d 985, 985, 979 N.Y.S.2d 865 [2014] ). Inasmuch as petitioner denied any involvement in drug trafficking within the facility, this claim presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Chadwick v. NYSDOCCS Washington Corr. Facility Supt., 148 A.D.3d at 1438, 50 N.Y.S.3d 188 ; Matter of Zimmerman v. Annucci, 139 A.D.3d 1205, 1206, 29 N.Y.S.3d 827 [2016] ). Further, our review of the confidential testimony and documentation reveals that there was sufficient proof and corroborating evidence to allow the Hearing Officer to independently assess the confidential information (see Matter of Boyle v. Fischer, 89 A.D.3d 1268, 1268, 932 N.Y.S.2d 389 [2011] ; Matter of Hill v. Fischer, 69 A.D.3d 1103, 1103, 893 N.Y.S.2d 339 [2010] ; compare Matter of Bridge v. Annucci, 132 A.D.3d 1197, 1197–1198, 19 N.Y.S.3d 607 [2015] ).Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, we cannot agree with his claim that the misbehavior report did not provide him with adequate notice of the charges (see 7 NYCRR 251–3.1 [c] ). The report, which was read into the record, was sufficiently detailed to apprise petitioner of the charges lodged against him and afford him an opportunity to prepare his defense (see Matter of Zimmerman v. Annucci, 139 A.D.3d at 1206, 29 N.Y.S.3d 827; Matter of Stinson v. Prack, 87 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 929 N.Y.S.2d 775 [2011] ). We also reject petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to call the three confidential informants as witnesses, as he does not have a right to confront or cross-examine the confidential informants (see Matter of Tulloch v. Fischer, 90 A.D.3d 1370, 1371, 935 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2011] ; Matter of Barton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 81 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 917 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2011] ; Matter of Shabazz v. Artus, 72 A.D.3d 1299, 1300, 903 N.Y.S.2d 544 [2010] ; see also 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b] ). Nor was it improper to deny his request for documentation that was confidential in nature (see Matter of Bailey v. Annucci, 142 A.D.3d 1195, 1196, 37 N.Y.S.3d 633 [2016] ; Matter of Martin v. Fischer, 109 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 971 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2013] ). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.

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

McCARTHY, J.P., ROSE, DEVINE, AARONS and RUMSEY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Heard v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 2, 2017
155 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Heard v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Antonio HEARD, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 2, 2017

Citations

155 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
62 N.Y.S.3d 819
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 7666

Citing Cases

Watson v. Annucci

The fact that the hearing officer rejected petitioner's denial of guilt is insufficient to establish bias…

Watson v. Annucci

In addition, the record does not support petitioner's contention that the hearing officer failed to make an…