Matter of Jackson v. Smith

• Decision Date: 02 December 2004
• Docket Number: 95690.
• Citation: 2004 NY Slip Op 08918,785 N.Y.S.2d 603,13 A.D.3d 685
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In the Matter of NATHANIEL JACKSON, Appellant, v. JOSEPH SMITH, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

13 A.D.3d 685

785 N.Y.S.2d 603

2004 NY Slip Op 08918

In the Matter of NATHANIEL JACKSON, Appellant, v. JOSEPH SMITH, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

95690.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

December 2, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered February 25, 2004 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As the result of an investigation conducted by officials at the correctional facility where petitioner was incarcerated, it was discovered that petitioner's wife and a friend had received money from inmates at the facility over a two-year period and the money had been used for unauthorized transactions involving, among other things, the sale of cigarettes and drugs, which were orchestrated by petitioner. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with soliciting, exchanging property without authorization, conspiring to introduce controlled substances into the facility and violating facility correspondence procedures. He was found guilty of all charges, except for the last, following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal, but the penalty was modified. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination and his petition was dismissed, resulting in this appeal.

Initially, we find no merit to petitioner's claim that the misbehavior report was not sufficiently particular to give him adequate notice of the charges. Considering that the report was the culmination of an ongoing investigation, which commenced January 5, 2003 and continued for over three months, its failure to set forth the specific dates of each transaction and to identify each inmate involved did not render it defective (see Matter of Mays v Goord, 285 AD2d 847, 848 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 603 [2001]; Matter of Carini v Mann, 237 AD2d 761, 762 [1997]). Inasmuch as the report provided enough details of the investigation to "afford [petitioner] an opportunity to prepare a defense" (Matter of Smith v Portuondo, 309 AD2d 1028, 1028 [2003]; see Matter of LaBounty v Goord, 245 AD2d 675, 676 [1997], appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 1002 [1998]), we find that it provided adequate...