Colon v. Coughlin
| Decision Date | 09 February 1989 |
| Citation | 147 A.D.2d 802,537 N.Y.S.2d 680 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Freddie COLON, Petitioner, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lois Coland, Prisoners' Legal Services of NY, Albany, for petitioner.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Frank K. Walsh, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, an inmate at Midstate Correctional Facility in Oneida County, was the subject of a misbehavior report charging him with, inter alia, assault. According to the report, the author, Correction Officer D. Sharrow, had just completed his rounds at approximately 2:00 A.M. when he observed inmate Owen Hightower running down the hall holding a sheet to his face. As Sharrow approached the inmate he noticed that there was a large cut on Hightower's face. Sharrow prevented Hightower from going back down to the unit and told him to go to the bathroom so they could talk. The report then states:
We went into the bathroom and I asked him who did this? He replied "You know"! I said no I don't. He then replied "The one I had an argument with earlyer [sic ]"! I said inmate Colon 86-A-8352. He replied "Yes"!
The misbehavior report refers to an entry in the log book from that evening which states that, at approximately 9:10 P.M., petitioner and Hightower "had an argument over the T.V."
At the Superintendent's hearing, petitioner claimed that he did not assault Hightower, although he admitted that the two had argued earlier in the evening after Hightower had changed the channel on the television. Petitioner also contended that Hightower did not make the statements attributed to him in the misbehavior report. Petitioner, however, did not request any witnesses at the hearing and none were called to testify.
The Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty of the assault charge and imposed a penalty of 365 days' confinement in the special housing unit, 365 days' loss of good time and 365 days' loss of certain privileges. After this disposition was affirmed by respondent, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding for review of the determination.
Petitioner contends that respondent's determination is not supported by substantial evidence since there was no direct evidence of petitioner's guilt. According to petiti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntosh v. Coughlin
...he originally claimed to have injured himself by falling and changed his story hours after the incident (cf., Matter of Colon v. Coughlin, 147 A.D.2d 802, 537 N.Y.S.2d 680; Matter of De Torres v. Coughlin, 135 A.D.2d 1068, 522 N.Y.S.2d 993, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 801, 530 N.Y.S.2d 553, 526 N.......
-
Santana v. Selsky
...support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477; Matter of Colon v. Coughlin, 147 A.D.2d 802, 537 N.Y.S.2d 680). ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition WEISS, P.J., and LEVINE, MERCURE, MAHON......
-
Huggins v. Coughlin
...provide the basis for an independent assessment of credibility by the Hearing Officer (see, id.; see also, Matter of Colon v. Coughlin, 147 A.D.2d 802, 537 N.Y.S.2d 680). Indeed, this court had held, in one case, that a Hearing Officer could gauge an informant's credibility from the content......
-
Santos v. Coughlin
...209 A.D.2d 770, 617 N.Y.S.2d 989; Matter of Huggins v. Coughlin, 184 A.D.2d 823, 584 N.Y.S.2d 341, supra; Matter of Colon v. Coughlin, 147 A.D.2d 802, 537 N.Y.S.2d 680). The possession of a spray bottle containing gasoline certainly provided some justification to believe that petitioner was......