Pelaez v. Early

• Decision Date: 17 January 2013
• Parties: In the Matter of Louis PELAEZ, Petitioner, v. Captain EARLY, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

102 A.D.3d 1030
957 N.Y.S.2d 913
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00253

In the Matter of Louis PELAEZ, Petitioner,
v.
Captain EARLY, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.

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

Jan. 17, 2013.

Louis Pelaez, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.

[102 A.D.3d 1030]Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violent conduct, fighting, failing to report an illness and providing false statements after a confidential source accused him of having attacked a fellow inmate. He pleaded guilty to failing to report an illness and, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was affirmed in relevant part upon administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documents, when coupled with the hearing testimony and confidential testimony, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Acosta v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d 1170, 1170, 950 N.Y.S.2d 816 [2012];Matter of Brown v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d 775, 775–776, 948 N.Y.S.2d 924 [2012] ). While the Hearing Officer asked the other participant in the fight questions raised by petitioner, he did so outside of petitioner's presence without recording that testimony and without providing a satisfactory explanation for his refusal to do so. However, there is no dispute as to the content of that testimony, which was immaterial because the other inmate could [102 A.D.3d 1031]not identify his attacker. Accordingly, we perceive no basis for annulment ( see7 NYCRR 254.5[b]; Matter of Frazier v. Goord, 251 A.D.2d 800, 801, 674 N.Y.S.2d 467 [1998],lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 813, 681 N.Y.S.2d 474, 704 N.E.2d 227 [1998];Matter of Graham v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 178 A.D.2d 870, 870, 577 N.Y.S.2d 728 [1991],lv. denied79 N.Y.2d 756, 583 N.Y.S.2d 192, 592 N.E.2d 800 [1992] ). Petitioner's remaining arguments, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to lack merit.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs,...