Opinion
11-10-2016
In the Matter of Raynard CARAWAY, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Raynard Caraway, Dannemora, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
Raynard Caraway, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., ROSE, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ.
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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was observed fighting with another inmate and disobeyed several commands to cease punching the other inmate, prompting a correction officer to use a baton strike to subdue petitioner. Shortly thereafter, petitioner was observed discarding a 1 ½–inch by 1 ½–inch razor into a drainage block. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting, refusing a direct order, engaging in violent conduct, possessing an altered item, assaulting an inmate and possessing a weapon. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to fighting and, at the conclusion of the hearing, was found guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Initially, given petitioner's plea of guilty to the charge of fighting, he is precluded from challenging the determination as to that charge (see Matter of Kim v. Annucci, 128 A.D.3d 1196, 1197, 8 N.Y.S.3d 495 [2015] ; Matter of Smith v. Annucci, 126 A.D.3d 1198, 1198, 3 N.Y.S.3d 636 [2015] ). As to the remaining charges, the misbehavior report, the testimony of several correction officers who were involved and familiar with the incident, the photographic evidence and the confidential documentary evidence provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Thousand v. Prack, 139 A.D.3d 1212, 1212, 32 N.Y.S.3d 348 [2016] ; Matter of Ramos v. Venettozzi, 131 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 16 N.Y.S.3d 354 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 913, 2015 WL 7433122 [2015] ; Matter of Quezada v. Fischer, 113 A.D.3d 1004, 1004, 979 N.Y.S.2d 426 [2014] ; Matter of Moreno v. Fischer, 100 A.D.3d 1167, 1167, 954 N.Y.S.2d 239 [2012] ). Inasmuch as petitioner denied cutting the other inmate with a razor and claimed that he was not the aggressor and was only defending himself, his varying narrative of the incident presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Hyatt v. Annucci, 141 A.D.3d 977, 978, 34 N.Y.S.3d 915 [2016] ; Matter of Ramos v. Venettozzi, 131 A.D.3d at 1310, 16 N.Y.S.3d 354 ).
Turning to petitioner's remaining contentions, we reject his claim that the misbehavior report did not adequately give him notice of the charges against him. In our view, the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific and provided adequate information to discern petitioner's role in the incident so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251–3.1 [c][1], [4]; Matter of Pequero v. Fischer, 122 A.D.3d 992, 993, 994 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2014] ; Matter of Basbus v. Prack, 112 A.D.3d 1088, 1088, 976 N.Y.S.2d 336 [2013] ). The record also establishes that the Hearing Officer afforded petitioner an adequate opportunity at the hearing to review the available documentation that he was permitted to view, including the unusual incident report (see Matter of Martin v. Fischer, 109 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 971 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2013] ; Matter of Chavis v. Goord, 58 A.D.3d 954, 955, 871 N.Y.S.2d 757 [2009] ). We further reject petitioner's contention that he was denied adequate employee assistance given that the Hearing Officer remedied any deficiencies, and petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced thereby (see Matter of McMaster v. Annucci, 138 A.D.3d 1289, 1290, 31 N.Y.S.3d 239 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 902, 2016 WL 4742537 [2016] ). To the extent that petitioner argues otherwise, he was not prejudiced by the fact that the misbehavior report was not endorsed by Correction Officer Deblasi given that this officer testified at the hearing (see Matter of Wilson v. Annucci, 138 A.D.3d 1335, 1335, 28 N.Y.S.3d 640 [2016] ; Matter of Cane v. Fischer, 115 A.D.3d 1097, 1098, 982 N.Y.S.2d 405 [2014] ). In any event, Deblasi testified that he only witnessed a portion of the incident, and the Hearing Officer's disposition did not rely upon Deblasi's testimony. We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim that the Hearing Officer exhibited bias, and we find them to be unpersuasive.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.