From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Amaker v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 14, 2000
278 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 14, 2000.

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

Anthony D. Amaker, Dannemora, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of harassment, being out of place and engaging in conduct that disturbs the order of the facility. The detailed misbehavior report, authored and endorsed by the correction officers involved in the incident, indicates that petitioner was found on an unauthorized court in the yard and became agitated when he was approached and ordered to come off the court. Petitioner then began making harassing statements which caused several inmates in the yard to stop what they were doing and take notice. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the misbehavior report and petitioner's testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's misconduct (see, Matter of Watson v. Morse, 260 A.D.2d 772; Matter of Rivera v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 910, 911). Any testimony presented on behalf of petitioner which conflicted with the version of events set forth in the misbehavior report presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Torres v. Goord, 275 A.D.2d 840, 841 713 N.Y.S.2d 509, 510).

Petitioner was also charged with, and found not guilty of, disobeying a direct order.

Furthermore, the record fails to support petitioner's assertion that his guilt was predetermined by virtue of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer. Moreover, the Hearing Officer appropriately considered petitioner's prior disciplinary record in determining the penalty to be imposed (see generally, Matter of Green v. Selsky, 257 A.D.2d 909, lv dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 988). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Amaker v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 14, 2000
278 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Amaker v. Senkowski

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANTHONY D. AMAKER, Petitioner, v. DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, as…

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

Date published: Dec 14, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 712

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Duncan

As set forth in the misbehavior report, petitioner was walking to an assigned program when he was ordered by…

In the Matter of Johnson v. Goord

searched in accordance with departmental directives when he moved into it 5½ months earlier, this is…