Alvarado v. Le Fevre
| Decision Date | 09 May 1985 |
| Citation | 488 N.Y.S.2d 856,111 A.D.2d 475 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Juan ALVARADO, Appellant, v. Eugene S. LE FEVRE, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Juan Alvarado, pro se.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Peter G. Crary, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, MIKOLL and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 9, 1984 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility, was charged with violation of several institutional rules. Six inmates had authorized the prison's finance office to disburse their personal funds to a New York City address in care of a "Record Shop". The shop was found to be nonexistent and the address was actually the home of petitioner's wife. The theory behind the charges was that petitioner was involved in an inmate conspiracy to smuggle illicit drugs into the facility. Prison officials believed that six inmates, under the guise of ordering musical recordings, were actually sending payment to the home address of petitioner's wife for drugs already received at the facility.
A hearing was held and the evidence presented against petitioner consisted of six disbursement forms signed by other inmates that authorized payment to the "Record Shop" at the address of petitioner's wife. The case against petitioner was based primarily on information given by three inmates. These three inmate informants did not testify at the hearing, and nowhere in the in camera material contained in the record are they even named. A correction officer related the information given by the unnamed inmates. No witness actually testified in petitioner's presence.
Following the very brief proceeding, the hearing officer determined that petitioner was guilty of each violation and the penalty imposed for each one of the six incidents included 60 days of special housing, to run consecutively. The Commissioner of Correctional Services modified the Superintendent's proceeding disposition by dismissing the findings that petitioner was guilty of possession or exchange of narcotics. Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding and Special Term dismissed the petition, holding that the Commissioner's determination was rational and supported by substantial evidence. This appeal by petitioner ensu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson, In re
...procedure suggested here. The New York cases are in accord. It is true, as defendant observes, that in one case (Alvarado v. Le Fevre (1985) 111 A.D.2d 475, 488 N.Y.S.2d 856), the court reversed disciplinary findings while stating, "[w]e can perceive no reason in this case why the hearing o......
-
Abdur-Raheem v. Mann
...v. Jones, 135 A.D.2d 1032, 522 N.Y.S.2d 966; Matter of Harris v. Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 896, 498 N.Y.S.2d 276; Matter of Alvarado v. LeFevre, 111 A.D.2d 475, 488 N.Y.S.2d 856). Similarly, most of the Federal courts that have considered the issue have held that it denies due process for a Hear......
-
Zavaro v. Coughlin
...assessment insufficient as a matter of law to support disciplinary determination) and cases cited therein; Alvarado v. LeFevre, 111 A.D.2d 475, 476, 488 N.Y.S.2d 856 (3d Dept.1985) (Uncorroborated hearsay "is insufficient in the eyes of the law and is no evidence at all,"), citation omitted......
-
Owens v. State, 7 Div. 781
...not be sufficient by itself in all cases to support a finding of guilt. Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961 (Ala.1984); Alvorado v. LeFevre, 111 A.D.2d 475, 488 N.Y.S.2d 856 (1985). With an incomplete record, we find it difficult to review the substantial evidence issue raised by appellant; howev......