Matter of Valentin v. Goord [3d Dept 1999

Full title: In the Matter of RICHARD VALENTIN, Petitioner, v. GLENN GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1999

(N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 18, 1999)

Opinion

March 18, 1999

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

Daniel L. Greenberg, Executor Director, Legal Aid Society (Kenneth R. Stephens of counsel), New York City, for petitioner.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Siobhan Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and PETERS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

PETERS, J.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from encouraging others to participate in work stoppages. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

Among the evidence presented against petitioner at his disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report, testimony from a correction officer who took part in the investigation and information from confidential sources. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Medina v. Goord, ___ A.D.2d ___, 678 N.Y.S.2d 919). While it is true that the Hearing Officer did not personally interview the confidential sources, there was sufficiently detailed information from which he could properly assess their reliability (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 119; Matter of Colon v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 582, 585). The testimony given by petitioner to the effect that he was not involved in any of the events for which he was being charged merely created an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Moore v. Goord, ___ A.D.2d ___, ___, 679 N.Y.S.2d 711, 712; Matter of Barreto v. Coombe, 238 A.D.2d 657).

Lastly, we have examined petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report failed to give him adequate notice of the charge against him and have found it to be unpreserved for our review (see, Matter of Wyche v. Coughlin, 191 A.D.2d 945, 946, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 651).

MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, CREW III and YESAWICH JR., JJ., concur.

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