From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Camacho v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 2001
284 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 14, 2001.

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Antonio Camacho, Pine City, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and, Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule against making threats after confidential sources identified him as the one who verbally threatened to injure a fellow inmate. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, testimony received at the hearing and the confidential information provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Martinez v. Selsky, 274 A.D.2d 726). A review of the confidential material belies petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer failed to independently assess the reliability and credibility of the information (see, id.).

Petitioner also asserts that the discrepancy in the misbehavior report as to the date of the incident denied him an opportunity to prepare a defense. After interviewing the confidential informants, it was discovered that the incident date was one day later than that listed on the misbehavior report. Under the circumstances here, we reject petitioner's challenge to the incident date inasmuch as the misbehavior report contained adequate detail to provide him with the notice of the charge against him in order for him to prepare a defense (see, Matter of Lashway v. Kuhlmann, 278 A.D.2d 605; Matter of Mitchell v. Phillips, 268 A.D.2d 633). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Camacho v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 2001
284 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Camacho v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ANTONIO CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 208

Citing Cases

Nogueras v. Selsky

at he wanted to kill Correction Officer Smith. Included in the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing…

In the Matter of Fayton v. Goord

report is insufficient because it failed to indicate the specific date and time that the incident occurred…