Bramble v. Mead

• Citation: 662 N.Y.S.2d 960,242 A.D.2d 858
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7769 Matter of Benjamin Joseph BRAMBLE, Petitioner, v. Captain L.B. MEAD, Acting Deputy Superintendent of Security, Marcy Correctional Facility, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1997
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 960

662 N.Y.S.2d 960

242 A.D.2d 858, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7769

Matter of Benjamin Joseph BRAMBLE, Petitioner, v. Captain L.B. MEAD, Acting Deputy Superintendent of Security, Marcy Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Sept. 30, 1997.

Benjamin Bramble, Marcy, for Petitioner.

Attorney General's Office by Wayne Benjamin, Utica, for Respondent.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and PINE, BALIO, BOEHM and FALLON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

The misbehavior report, augmented by the testimony of its author and another correction officer who also signed the report, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination of respondent that petitioner violated inmate rules 109.10 and 109.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][10][i], [iii]; see, Matter of Bryant v. Coughlin, 77 N.Y.2d 642, 647, 569 N.Y.S.2d 582, 572 N.E.2d 23; Matter of Perez v. Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 616, 499 N.Y.S.2d 659, 490 N.E.2d 526; People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997). The contention of petitioner that the charges were brought against him to retaliate for the filing of a grievance against the correction officer who cosigned the misbehavior report merely presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477; Matter of Young v. Coombe, 227 A.D.2d 799, 801, 642 N.Y.S.2d 443).

The contention of petitioner that the Hearing Officer improperly curtailed cross-examination of the other correction officer who signed the misbehavior report is without merit. "[A]n inmate does not have a constitutional right to cross-examine adverse witnesses at a disciplinary hearing" (Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 119, 623 N.Y.S.2d 758, 647 N.E.2d 1266; see, Matter of Laureano v. Kuhlmann, 75 N.Y.2d 141, 146, 551 N.Y.S.2d 184, 550 N.E.2d 437). The Hearing Officer properly refused to allow petitioner to read into the record portions of the Penal Law's definitions of forgery in the second degree and perjury; those definitions were not relevant to the charges in the misbehavior report (see, Matter of Parker v. Coughlin, 211 A.D.2d 929, 621 N.Y.S.2d 954).

The contention of petitioner that certain statements of the other correction officer who signed the misbehavior report prejudiced the Hearing Officer against petitioner is not supported by the record (see, Matter of Parker v. Coughlin, supra; Matter of Martinez v. Scully, 194 A.D.2d 679,...