| Matter of Umoja v Bezio |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05931 [64 AD3d 1066] |
| July 23, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Piru Umoja, Petitioner, v Norman R. Bezio, asDirector of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), forrespondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of the Commissioner ofCorrectional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
After a search of his cell revealed a letter from another inmate highlighting the importance ofa chain of command and the use of caution when recruiting other prisoners into a particulargang, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rulethat prohibits possession of gang-related materials. He was found guilty of the charge followinga tier III disciplinary hearing and a penalty was imposed. The determination was upheld onadministrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. The confiscated letter, misbehavior report and testimony from the authoringcorrection officers, both of whom were trained in the identification of gang-related materials,provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see Matter of Sweat v Fischer, 52 AD3d 1142, 1142 [2008]).Contrary to petitioner's assertions, he was not entitled to hear confidential testimony regardingthe ongoing investigation that led to the search of his cell (see Matter of Rickson v Leclaire, 46 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2007];Matter of Tusa v Goord, 287 AD2d [*2]907, 908 [2001],appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 646 [2002]), and the misbehavior report "providedidentifying information and the factual basis for the charge[ ] with sufficient particularity toallow [him] to prepare a defense" (Matter of Maya v Goord, 272 AD2d 724, 725 [2000],lv denied 96 NY2d 704 [2001]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including that hisemployee assistant was inadequate and that the Hearing Officer was biased, have been reviewedand are determined to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Kane, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.