From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Le Tam v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 2001
284 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 14, 2001.

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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Le Tam, Auburn, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and, Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from starting fires and destroying State property. In our view, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to apprise petitioner of the alleged misconduct and to enable him to mount a defense. The report, combined with the testimony adduced at the hearing, including the confidential testimony of the correction officer who authored the report, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Vega v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 807; Matter of Scott v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 631). Moreover, we reject petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer erred in relying upon confidential testimony without first assessing the reliability of such testimony. Our review of the in camera transcript indicates that the Hearing Officer made the required independent assessment and that there was a sufficient basis for his conclusion that the confidential information was reliable and credible (see, Matter of Peters v. Goord, 280 A.D.2d 738, 720 N.Y.S.2d 596; Matter of Vega v. Goord, supra). Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no requirement that the Hearing Officer personally interview the confidential informant in order to make such an assessment (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Le Tam v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 2001
284 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Le Tam v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF LE TAM, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as Commissioner of…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 519

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Ramirez v. Schultz

The record is devoid of any proof of interference. Finally, although the petitioner did tear up the…

In the Matter of Harris v. Selsky

Petitioner was also charged with extortion, however, that charge was administratively dropped and not…