From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2013
107 A.D.3d 1262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-20

In the Matter of Stanley HOWARD, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.

Stanley Howard, Stormville, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for respondents.



Stanley Howard, Stormville, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for respondents.
Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, SPAIN and McCARTHY, JJ.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges an administrative determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits encouraging, soliciting or attempting to force another to engage in any sexual act. Although not detailing the time, place and location of petitioner's conduct, the allegations in the misbehavior report—that he admitted to the author of the misbehavior report that he “manages homosexuals”—were sufficient to apprise petitioner of the charges against him in order to adequately prepare a defense ( see Matter of Torres v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 710, 651 N.Y.S.2d 642 [1996] ). Furthermore, the misbehavior report, confidential information and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Gallagher v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 93 A.D.3d 1058, 940 N.Y.S.2d 697 [2012];Matter of Wilson v. Fischer, 58 A.D.3d 997, 998, 871 N.Y.S.2d 462 [2009] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the testimony of the correction officer regarding the confidential information and the nature of such information itself permitted the Hearing Officer to independently assess its credibility and reliability ( see Matter of Flanders v. Fischer, 105 A.D.3d 1238, 1239, 962 N.Y.S.2d 827 [2013];Matter of McCain v. Fischer, 104 A.D.3d 1009, 1010, 960 N.Y.S.2d 563 [2013] ).

Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Howard v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2013
107 A.D.3d 1262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Howard v. Prack

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Stanley HOWARD, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as Director…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 1262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
967 N.Y.S.2d 516
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4653

Citing Cases

Beasley v. Venettozzi

Petitioner's denial that he had any role in the assault and his claim that other inmates could have committed…