From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Mamon v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 2, 1999
267 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 2, 1999

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 Superintendent of Riverview Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

William Mamon, Beacon, petitioner in person.

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

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., YESAWICH JR., PETERS, SPAIN and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing at which petitioner, a prison inmate, pleaded guilty to a visiting room violation, he was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from violating visiting room procedures and disobeying a direct order. According to the misbehavior report written by the correction officer involved in the incident, petitioner sat at the wrong table in the visiting room and refused to obey several direct orders to return to his assigned table. Petitioner's guilt was affirmed upon administrative appeal, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination.

We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's argument, we find that the misbehavior report, combined with petitioner's own statement at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see,Matter of Farid v. Coombe, 236 A.D.2d 660). We reject petitioner's contention that the inmate misbehavior report was improperly endorsed (see, Matter of Di Rose v. Coombe, 233 A.D.2d 799, 800). Although petitioner additionally argues that the charges in the misbehavior report were fabricated, this merely presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Polite v. Goord, 258 A.D.2d 795). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims that he was denied the right to call witnesses and that the disciplinary charges were motivated by racial bias against his wife, have been examined and found to be unpreserved for appellate review.

MIKOLL, J.P., YESAWICH JR., PETERS, SPAIN and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Matter of Mamon v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 2, 1999
267 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Mamon v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WILLIAM MAMON, Petitioner, v. LIEUTENANT S. ROBERTS, as…

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

Date published: Dec 2, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 564

Citing Cases

Retamozzo v. Ny. Dept. of Corre. Serv

We find that this is sufficient to allow for judicial review ( see Matter of McCain v Goord, 273 AD2d 571).…