From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Avincola v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 10, 2001
283 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

May 10, 2001.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Luis Avincola, Comstock, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and, Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from fighting. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding, alleging that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and that various procedural errors require annulment. Although the misbehavior report is sufficient to constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139-140; Matter of Gloster v. Goord, 278 A.D.2d 568, 717 N.Y.S.2d 411), annulment and remittal is required based upon the denial of petitioner's right to an employee assistant.

Our review of the "assistant selection form" contained in the record reveals that although the box indicating petitioner's waiver of his right to select an assistant has been checked, the form was not signed by petitioner and there is no indication that he refused to sign. At the commencement of the hearing, the Hearing Officer acknowledged petitioner's apparent challenge to the alleged waiver but determined to proceed with the hearing stating that he would "see where we're going here and if I think that there is a need for an assistant we'll take care of it". Given that this was a tier III hearing for which inmates are entitled to employee assistance (see, 7 NYCRR 254.4, 251-4.1 [a] [4]), and in the absence of clear evidence of a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right (see, Matter of Brown v. O'Keefe, 141 A.D.2d 915; Matter of Johnakin v. Racette, 111 A.D.2d 579), we find that the hearing should have been adjourned to provide petitioner with an employee assistant to aid in the preparation of his defense. In light of our decision, we need not address petitioner's remaining contention.

ADJUDGED that the determination is annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Avincola v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 10, 2001
283 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In the Matter of Avincola v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF LUIS AVINCOLA, PETITIONER, v. GLENN S. GOORD, AS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 10, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
725 N.Y.S.2d 116

Citing Cases

Vaughn v. Orlando

Here, the petitioner was confined to administrative segregation prior to his disciplinary hearing and,…

McKinley v. Goord

's assertion that he did not intend to threaten the officer presented a credibility issue for the Hearing…