| Matter of Washington v Fischer |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05627 [74 AD3d 1659] |
| June 24, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of John Washington, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1]
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which foundpetitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
During the course of an investigation, correction officials obtained information suggestingthat petitioner and another inmate were conducting an illicit drug business in the correctionalfacility. It was further disclosed that petitioner conspired with other inmates to have a thirdinmate, who owed him money, assaulted and that this inmate was later attacked, sustaining aserious cut to his face that required hospitalization. Additional information revealed that theinmate who carried out the attack gave the weapon to petitioner who, in turn, gave it to anotherinmate for disposal. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior reportwith numerous prison disciplinary rule violations, including engaging in violent conduct,conspiring to assault another inmate, possessing a weapon, smuggling and conspiring to selldrugs. Petitioner was found guilty of these five charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinaryhearing. On administrative appeal, the charge of conspiring to sell drugs was dismissed, but thedetermination of guilt was otherwise affirmed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing andthe confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide [*2]substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Hill v Fischer, 69 AD3d1103, 1103 [2010]; Matter ofGriffith v Selsky, 53 AD3d 884 [2008]; Matter of Soto v Goord, 275 AD2d 872,873 [2000]). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the record reveals that the confidential informationwas sufficiently detailed to enable the Hearing Officer to independently assess its reliability andcredibility (see Matter of Plowden vBunn, 38 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2007]; Matter of Roman v Goord, 284 AD2d 604,605 [2001]). Petitioner's remaining contentions are unavailing. Therefore, we find no basis fordisturbing the determination at issue.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.