Opinion
532797
09-23-2021
In the Matter of Jawwad Abdul-Halim, Petitioner, v. Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
Jawwad Abdul-Halim, Romulus, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Beezly J. Kiernan of counsel), for respondent.
Calendar Date:September 3, 2021
Jawwad Abdul-Halim, Romulus, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Beezly J. Kiernan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.
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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with distributing gang material and violating facility correspondence procedures after an outgoing letter written by petitioner - which was intercepted as a result of an authorized mail watch of petitioner's incoming and outgoing correspondence - allegedly contained gang-related communications. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. The determination was subsequently affirmed upon administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, as well as the testimony from the author of the misbehavior report and a facility grievance supervisor, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Bellamy v Noeth, 195 A.D.3d 1289, 1289 [2021]; Matter of Douglas v Annucci, 153 A.D.3d 1014, 1015 [2017]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the record establishes that the correction officer and the facility grievance supervisor were adequately trained in identifying gang-related material (see Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 149 A.D.3d 1455, 1455 [2017]). Although petitioner denied that the terms and phrases identified in the letter were gang-related references, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Bellamy v Noeth, 195 A.D.3d at 1290; Matter of Quiroz v Venettozzi, 161 A.D.3d 1475, 1476 [2018]).
To the extent that petitioner challenges the mail watch authorization, we find that the confidential, authorized mail watch, which was provided to, and reviewed by, the Hearing Officer, sufficiently "set forth the specific facts forming the basis for the action" (7 NYCRR 720.3 [e] [1]; Matter of Davis v Prack, 100 A.D.3d 1177, 1178 [2012], lv dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 910 [2013]; Matter of Cochran v Bezio, 70 A.D.3d 1161, 1162 [2010]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his challenge to the timeliness of the hearing and claim of hearing officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.