Pagan v. Annucci

• Citation: 45 N.Y.S.3d 812 (Mem),2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00689,147 A.D.3d 1125
• Parties: In the Matter of Daniel PAGAN, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 02 February 2017
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

147 A.D.3d 1125
45 N.Y.S.3d 812 (Mem)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00689

In the Matter of Daniel PAGAN, Petitioner,
v.
Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Feb. 2, 2017.

Daniel Pagan, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Patrick A. Woods of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During the course of an investigation, correction officials received confidential information revealing that petitioner and two other inmates were planning to escape from the correctional facility. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with conspiracy to escape. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was later affirmed on administrative

45 N.Y.S.3d 813

appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of correction officials involved in the investigation and confidential testimony and documentation considered by the Hearing Officer in camera provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Chandler v. Annucci, 135 A.D.3d 1258, 1259, 23 N.Y.S.3d 494 [2016] ; Matter of Sullivan v. Fischer, 95 A.D.3d 1514, 1515, 944 N.Y.S.2d 677 [2012] ). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the Hearing Officer conducted a sufficient independent assessment of the confidential information to determine its credibility and reliability. In this regard, the Hearing Officer personally interviewed correction officials involved in the investigation, who disclosed details that corroborated petitioner's involvement and the informant's past reliability, and also reviewed the incriminating confidential documents (see Matter of Al–Matin v. Prack, 131 A.D.3d 1293, 1293, 16 N.Y.S.3d 96 [2015], lv. den...