| Matter of Partee v Bezio |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08539 [67 AD3d 1224] |
| November 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Cedric Partee, Petitioner, v Norman Bezio, asDirector of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of CorrectionalServices which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
After an investigation indicated that petitioner had participated in a fight with anotherinmate, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating prison rules prohibitingfighting, engaging in violent conduct and giving false statements or information. Following a tierIII disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. This determination wasaffirmed on administrative appeal, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report set forth the relevantdate, place and time of the incident and was otherwise sufficiently detailed to apprise petitionerof the charges made against him (seeMatter of Williams v Goord, 31 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2006]; Matter of Hernandez v Selsky, 9 AD3d662, 663 [2004], appeal dismissed and lv denied 3 NY3d 698 [2004]). Moreover,the determination of guilt was supported by substantial evidence, which included themisbehavior report, related documentary evidence and hearing testimony (see Matter of Gibson v Fischer, 56AD3d 916, 917 [2008]; Matter ofReddick v Goord, 43 AD3d 503, 503 [2007]). Petitioner's testimony that he wasattacked and suffered his injuries while unconscious presented a credibility determination for theHearing Officer to [*2]resolve (see Matter of Valerio v Selsky, 19AD3d 959, 959 [2005]). Finally, as our review of the record reveals that the disciplinaryhearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and there is no evidence that thedetermination of guilt flowed from any alleged bias, we reject petitioner's contention that theHearing Officer should have recused herself from the proceeding due to petitioner naming her asa defendant in an unrelated lawsuit (seeMatter of Burgess v Goord, 34 AD3d 948, 949 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 813[2007]; Matter of Chavis v Goord,8 AD3d 786, 787 [2004]).
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Kane, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.