Knight v. Rodriguez
| Docket Number | 535425 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 03525 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jerry Knight, Petitioner, v. Anthony Rodriguez, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Calendar Date: May 26, 2023
Jerry Knight, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Beezly J. Kiernan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Clark, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of the Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violent conduct creating a disturbance, fighting and refusing a direct order. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner participated in an altercation involving roughly 65 other incarcerated individuals. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing petitioner was found guilty of all charges and a penalty was imposed. The determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, the testimony of its author and video surveillance footage of the incident provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of McClary v Annucci, 189 A.D.3d 1812, 1813 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 905 [2021]; Matter of Hart v Rodriguez, 169 A.D.3d 1148, 1148-1149 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 910 [2019]; Matter of Pequero v Fischer, 122 A.D.3d 992, 993 [3d Dept 2014]). Petitioner's differing version of his actions during the incident presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 199 A.D.3d 1146, 1147 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Fernandez v Annucci, 161 A.D.3d 1431, 1432 [3d Dept 2018]).
Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to provide him notice of the charges and to enable him to discern his role in the incident, thereby affording him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 168 A.D.3d 1334, 1335 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Robinson v Lee, 155 A.D.3d 1169, 1170 [3d Dept 2017]). We similarly reject petitioner's contention that he received inadequate employee assistance inasmuch as he did not receive a copy of the unusual incident report as requested. The record reflects that at the time of the hearing only a preliminary report was available, which was nevertheless read into the record in petitioner's presence (see Matter of Malloy v Rodriguez, 200 A.D.3d 1382, 1383 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Funches v State of New York Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 163 A.D.3d 1390, 1391 [3d Dept 2018], lv dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1140 [2019]). In any event, we have reviewed the final unusual incident report, "which does not contain any information exonerating petitioner of his guilt, nor has petitioner established that his ability to present a defense was prejudiced by not having received a copy of such report" (Matter of Gaston v Fischer, 109 A.D.3d 1063, 1064 [3d Dept 2013]; see Matter of Malloy v Rodriguez, 200 A.D.3d at 1383). Notably, the Hearing Officer did not rely upon the unusual incident report in rendering the determination (see e.g. Matter of Legette v Rodriguez, 213 A.D.3d 1066, 1067 [3d Dept 2023 ]).
We are similarly unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that he was improperly denied the testimony of a certain correction officer, as the record reflects that petitioner never requested such testimony, and "the Hearing Officer was under no obligation to present petitioner's case for him" (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 168 A.D.3d at 1335 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Brown v Venettozzi, 162 A.D.3d 1434 1436 [3d Dept 2018]). Although petitioner also mentioned his intention to call an unnamed incarcerated individual as a witness to his involvement in the incident, he failed to identify any such...
To continue reading
Request your trial