| Matter of Edwards v Leclaire |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01714 [71 AD3d 1199] |
| March 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Charles Edwards, Petitioner, v Lucien Leclaire, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of FranklinCorrectional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, returned to his cell from his program assignment as a law libraryclerk and began conversing with a fellow inmate, after which petitioner removed papers from hisfolder and had the inmate sign them. A correction officer determined the papers to be legaldocuments and, thereafter, petitioner was served with a misbehavior report charging him withproviding unauthorized legal assistance and smuggling. Petitioner was found guilty of bothcharges following a tier II disciplinary hearing and, after his administrative appeal wasunsuccessful, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. The misbehavior report and the testimony of both petitioner and the correctionofficer who witnessed the events and authored the report provide substantial evidence to supportthe determination of guilt (see Matter ofBrown v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1221 [2009]; Matter of Rosa v Brown, 47 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2008]). To theextent that petitioner controverted the correction officer's version of the events, that presented acredibility issue to be [*2]resolved by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Brown v Taylor, 62AD3d 1230, 1231 [2009]; Matter of Rosa v Brown, 47 AD3d at 1143). We rejectpetitioner's claim that his due process rights were violated because he was not made aware ofcertain evidence and testimony to be presented at the hearing, inasmuch as the misbehaviorreport was sufficient to put petitioner on notice of the charges against him and enabled him toprepare a defense (see Matter of Fludd vNew York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 62 AD3d 1149, 1152 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Rios v Fischer, 59 AD3d 797, 797 [2009]).
We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.