From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Primo v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1999
266 A.D.2d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Decided November 4, 1999

Darryl Primo, Attica, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT


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 respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits assaulting other inmates. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of his guilt on procedural and substantial evidence grounds. Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court and we confirm.

Initially, we reject petitioner's contention that the absence of a signature on his copy of the misbehavior report rendered it defective inasmuch as the correction officer who prepared and signed the original report sufficiently explained the missing signature at the disciplinary hearing (see, Matter of Ray v. Coughlin, 226 A.D.2d 846). Additionally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by this technical error (see,Matter of Moley v. Selsky, 245 A.D.2d 588). Further, the copy of the misbehavior report provided to petitioner was sufficiently detailed to enable him to prepare a defense even in the absence of the names of other inmates involved in the incident (see, Matter of Couch v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 720;Matter of S. v. Coughlin, 172 A.D.2d 937, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 855).

Finally, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who had authored it and who had investigated the incident provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt, notwithstanding that the correction officer did not actually witness the assault (see, Matter of Bostic v. Coughlin, 216 A.D.2d 766). Although the victim subsequently denied that petitioner assaulted him, this merely created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Rodriguez v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 854, lv dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 907).

Petitioner's remaining arguments, to the extent preserved for our review, are found to be lacking in merit.

MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Matter of Primo v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1999
266 A.D.2d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Primo v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DARRYL PRIMO, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Nov 4, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 750

Citing Cases

Walton v. Goord

The detailed misbehavior report and testimony of its author, who saw petitioner hit other inmates with a…

Van Gorder v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

We reject petitioner's argument that the absence of the correction officer's signature from petitioner's copy…