Opinion
2012-02-2
In the Matter of Lorenzo BROOKS, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Lorenzo Brooks, Attica, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Lorenzo Brooks, Attica, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
After correction officers received information from several confidential informants, petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with demonstration for spearheading a plan to encourage inmates to boycott the mess hall and participation in recreation. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing , he was found guilty of that charge. After the determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officers who investigated the incident and testimony of a confidential informant provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Pisano v. Fischer, 87 A.D.3d 1247, 1248, 930 N.Y.S.2d 304 [2011]; Matter of Stinson v. Prack, 87 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 929 N.Y.S.2d 775 [2011] ). The fact that the Hearing Officer personally took testimony from the confidential informant provided an ample basis to make a credibility assessment ( see Matter of Barton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 81 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 917 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2011]; Matter of Washington v. Fischer, 78 A.D.3d 1399, 1399–1400, 910 N.Y.S.2d 706 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 707, 920 N.Y.S.2d 780, 945 N.E.2d 1031 [2011] ). Petitioner's protestations of innocence and the testimony of his inmate witnesses raised a credibility question to be resolved by the Hearing Officer ( see Matter of Kalwasinski v. Fischer, 87 A.D.3d 1207, 1208, 929 N.Y.S.2d 777 [2011]; Matter of Vidal–Ortiz v. Fischer, 84 A.D.3d 1627, 1628, 923 N.Y.S.2d 312 [2011] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, he had no right to access the confidential information ( see Matter of Washington v. Fischer, 78 A.D.3d at 1400, 910 N.Y.S.2d 706; Matter of Sanders v. Haggett, 72 A.D.3d 1372, 1373, 901 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2010] ). Lastly, the misbehavior report was sufficient to give petitioner notice of the charges against him and allow him to prepare a defense ( see Matter of Harrison v. Prack, 87 A.D.3d 1221, 1221, 930 N.Y.S.2d 294 [2011]; Matter of Cognata v. Fischer, 85 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 925 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2011] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent that they have been preserved for our review, have been considered and are lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.