From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Amaker v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 13, 2000
271 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 13, 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 Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Anthony D. Amaker, Dannemora, petitioner in person.

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

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Following a tier II hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of harassment. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report written by an eyewitness and petitioner's own admission that he called a correction officer a racist provides substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of El-Shabazz v. Selsky, 257 A.D.2d 937; Matter of Ross v. Bolak, 256 A.D.2d 789). We also reject petitioner's contention that his remark was protected expression under the 1st Amendment. It is well settled that while incarcerated, prisoners retain those rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment; however, they "may exercise [those rights] * * * to the extent it would not be inconsistent with their status as prisoners and with the legitimate restrictions imposed by confinement" (Matter of Lucas v. Scully, 71 N.Y.2d 399, 404).

Furthermore, we find that petitioner's contention of Hearing Officer bias is without merit. The fact that the Hearing Officer resolved credibility issues against petitioner is not indicative of bias (see, Matter of Lawrence v. Headley, 257 A.D.2d 837). In any event, petitioner has failed to establish that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Omaro v. Goord, 269 A.D.2d 629, 701 N.Y.S.2d 923).

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


Summaries of

Matter of Amaker v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 13, 2000
271 A.D.2d 772 (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: Apr 13, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

Matter of Amaker v. Senkowski

Decided September 5, 2000. Appeal from the 3d Dept., 271 A.D.2d 772. APPLICATIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR LEAVE…

In the Matter of Gargano v. Goord

Petitioner's claims of Hearing Officer bias are unsupported by the records. The fact that the Hearing…