From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sorey v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 11, 1993
190 A.D.2d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 11, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.


Petitioner was found guilty after a Superintendent's hearing of violating State-wide rule 104.10 (rioting) and 109.11 (leaving an assigned area without authorization) as a result of his participation in an inmate uprising on May 28-29, 1991 at Southport Correctional Facility in Chemung County. In this proceeding, petitioner contends that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and that procedural errors require annulment.

The misbehavior report filed against petitioner and authored by Correction Officer R. Farrell alleged that petitioner was "personally identified in the A-block Yard as a participant in the take over of this area" by both Farrell and another correction officer, that petitioner had earlier been secured in an exercise unit but was identified at various locations in the yard throughout the day and that, although all inmates were given an opportunity to leave the yard, petitioner "continued to participate". In addition, petitioner admitted that he had been outside his cell during the uprising. We find that this evidence was sufficient to support the findings of guilt (see, Matter of Williams v Coughlin, 190 A.D.2d 883; Matter of Vitiello v Coughlin, 159 A.D.2d 791, 792). We also find that the misbehavior report gave petitioner sufficient notice of the nature of the charges against him (Matter of Williams v Coughlin, supra, at 886; Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe, 105 A.D.2d 913, 914, affd 66 N.Y.2d 835). Further, petitioner failed to request that the Hearing Officer view the videotapes of the incident and waived his own right to view videotapes and photographic evidence by failing to request the opportunity to do so at the hearing (see, Matter of Williams v Coughlin, supra, at 886). Finally, we do not find that the penalty imposed was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, supra).

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


Summaries of

Matter of Sorey v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 11, 1993
190 A.D.2d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Sorey v. Coughlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CARLOS SOREY, Petitioner, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, III, as…

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

Date published: Feb 11, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 895

Citing Cases

Matter of Sorey v. Coughlin

Decided July 1, 1993 Appeal from (3d Dept: 190 A.D.2d 936) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…

Matter of Booker v. Goord

We modify the determination, however, with respect to the other charges. There is no evidence in the record…