From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Richardson v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Clinton County.


Petitioner argues that the determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services is not supported by substantial evidence because the Hearing Officer relied upon a misbehavior report and information obtained from confidential informants whom he had not personally interviewed. We disagree. Respondents have submitted a transcript of an in camera interview of the correction officer who investigated the incident in which the correction officer names the four informants and relates that all four were eyewitnesses to the incident and identified petitioner as the assailant either by name or description. In addition, the transcript establishes that all the informants were interviewed separately with little or no opportunity to talk with each other, minimizing the chance that they had harmonized their stories, and each informant additionally identified petitioner from a photo array. The informants' information was corroborated to the extent that a frisk of the company of inmates present at the time of the incident, which included petitioner, resulted in discovery on the floor of the weapon used in the attack and revealed that petitioner was one of the inmates with blood on their clothes and hands. We find, on this record, that the Hearing Officer had a sufficient basis to make his own independent determination of the credibility of the informants (see, Matter of Hodges v Coughlin, 180 A.D.2d 942; Matter of Machado v Leonardo, 180 A.D.2d 936). The determination was therefore supported by substantial evidence. We also find that the Hearing Officer's determination on the record not to personally interview the confidential informants was rationally based upon a desire to protect the informants (see, Matter of Machado v Leonardo, supra; Matter of Moore v Coughlin, 170 A.D.2d 723; Matter of Gibson v LeFevre, 133 A.D.2d 978).

Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Richardson v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Richardson v. Coughlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RICKY RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, III…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 253

Citing Cases

Lyde v. Senkowski

This confidential information indicated that the informant saw the assailant and identified petitioner as the…