From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duran v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 27, 2001
289 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

89637

Decided and Entered: December 27, 2001.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Joaquin Duran, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Gina M. Ciccone of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit creating a disturbance, making false statements and refusing to obey a direct order. As set forth in the misbehavior report, petitioner had given a correction officer a note stating that the officer had taken his identification card two days earlier and had neglected to return it. Later that evening, petitioner was ready to go to the gym when the correction officer informed him that he could not go without his identification card. Petitioner became enraged, produced his identification card, which apparently had been in his possession, and began shouting at the officer, thereby creating a disturbance. Petitioner refused to obey a direct order to return to his cell.

Substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt of the charged misconduct was presented at the disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report and who witnessed the conduct in question (see, Matter of Flowers v. Barkley, 244 A.D.2d 682, 683). The fact that petitioner and his inmate witness gave testimony asserting that the misbehavior report had been filed in retaliation for complaints that petitioner had previously lodged against the correction officer presented an issue of credibility that the Hearing Officer was free to resolve (see, Matter of Melette v. Lacy, 251 A.D.2d 831; Matter of Muhammad v. Bennett, 242 A.D.2d 778, 779). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his allegation of Hearing Officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Duran v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 27, 2001
289 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Duran v. Senkowski

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOAQUIN DURAN, Petitioner, v. DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, as…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 636

Citing Cases

Rivera v. Goord

When he called the names of the inmates who were to be dropped off at Gouverneur Correctional Facility in St.…

In the Matter of Ortiz v. Duncan

When correction officers attempted to restore order, petitioner refused to obey their repeated directives to…