From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 19, 2012
94 A.D.3d 1299 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-19

In the Matter of Adrian WHITE, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Adrian White, Romulus, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Adrian White, Romulus, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

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 Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During the course of an investigation, it was determined that petitioner and another inmate had taken a camera and 10 packs of film from the visiting room. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling and stealing state property. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding followed.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, hearing testimony, and confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Phipps v. Fischer, 82 A.D.3d 1396, 1397, 918 N.Y.S.2d 385 [2011]; Matter of Williams v. Fischer, 75 A.D.3d 706, 903 N.Y.S.2d 278 [2010], affd. 18 N.Y.3d 888, 940 N.Y.S.2d 531, 963 N.E.2d 1232 [2012] ). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the Hearing Officer properly ascertained the reliability of the confidential sources by independently questioning the officer who spoke with them ( see Matter of Stinson v. Prack, 87 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 929 N.Y.S.2d 775 [2011]; Matter of Sterling v. Bezio, 76 A.D.3d 1165, 1165, 907 N.Y.S.2d 755 [2010] ). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the determination of guilt.

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

*384 PETERS, P.J., MERCURE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

White v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 19, 2012
94 A.D.3d 1299 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

White v. Prack

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Adrian WHITE, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as Director of…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 19, 2012

Citations

94 A.D.3d 1299 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2914
942 N.Y.S.2d 383

Citing Cases

Smythe v. Fischer

The misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officials familiar with the investigation, as well as…

Rossi v. Fischer

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officials involved in the…