From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scivolette v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 17, 2013
102 A.D.3d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-01-17

In the Matter of George J. SCIVOLETTE, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

George J. Scivolette, Cape Vincent, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


George J. Scivolette, Cape Vincent, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an investigation, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with conspiring to smuggle and possess drugs, drug use and a facility correspondence violation. Petitioner pleaded guilty to violating facility correspondence rules and, after a tier III disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was upheld upon administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, hearing testimony, confidential testimony and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Cognata v. Fischer, 85 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 925 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2011];*916Matter of Smart v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 75 A.D.3d 1017, 1017–1018, 907 N.Y.S.2d 526 [2010] ). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the misbehavior report was prepared as part of an ongoing investigation and was sufficiently detailed to permit him to defend himself ( see Matter of Cognata v. Fischer, 85 A.D.3d at 1457, 925 N.Y.S.2d 725;Matter of Smart v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 75 A.D.3d at 1018, 907 N.Y.S.2d 526). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been examined and found to lack merit.

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

PETERS, P.J., MERCURE, LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scivolette v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 17, 2013
102 A.D.3d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Scivolette v. Prack

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of George J. SCIVOLETTE, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 17, 2013

Citations

102 A.D.3d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 245
957 N.Y.S.2d 915

Citing Cases

Cane v. Fischer

We confirm. The misbehavior report, related documentation and testimony considered by the Hearing Officer at…

Best v. Larkin

We note that the Hearing Officer independently assessed the reliability of the confidential information based…