Calendar Date: June 11, 2018
Jashaad Gulifield, Garnerville, petitioner pro se.
Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady
of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker,
MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by
order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to
review a determination of respondent Commissioner of
Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner
guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
March 2016, while incarcerated at a state correctional
facility, an inmate reported that petitioner had, among other
things, either paid, or aggressively demanded, him to engage
in sex acts with petitioner on multiple occasions during
January and February 2016. A subsequent investigation by both
the facility and a senior investigator with the Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision's Office of Special
Investigations confirmed the inmate's allegations and
further revealed that petitioner had participated in
third-party telephone calls to solicit money. As a result,
petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with
committing a sex offense, stalking, soliciting and making
third-party telephone calls. Following a tier III
disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged
and a penalty was imposed. That determination was affirmed
upon petitioner's administrative appeal with a modified
penalty, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
confirm. The misbehavior report, related confidential
documentation, recording of the telephone conversations and
testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to
support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Pagan v
Venettozzi, 151 A.D.3d 1508, 1508 , lv
denied 30 N.Y.3d 903');">30 N.Y.3d 903 ; Matter of Mohamed v
Prack, 137 A.D.3d 1402, 1403 ; Matter of Davis
v Annucci, 123 A.D.3d 1279, 1279 ).
Petitioner's denial of the offenses charged and
exculpatory explanation for the transfer of $100 to the
inmate's facility account created credibility issues for
the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Pagan v
Venettozzi, 151 A.D.3d at 1509; Matter of Hood v
Goord, 36 A.D.3d 1064, 1065 ).
to petitioner's procedural contentions, he argues that
the misbehavior report omits the specific dates and times of
the sex offenses, thereby depriving him of adequate notice of
the charges. We find, however, that the detailed misbehavior
report, which summarized the results of the investigation and
set forth the specific rule violations, was sufficiently
detailed to afford petitioner notice of the charges so as to
enable him to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1
[c]; Matter of Harris v Annucci, 148 A.D.3d 1385,
1385 ; Matter of Hyatt v Annucci, 137 A.D.3d
1382, 1382 , lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 910');">27 N.Y.3d 910 ;
Matter of Chandler v Annucci, 135 A.D.3d 1258, 1259
). The record further establishes that any defects in
his prehearing employee assistance were remedied by the
Hearing Officer, and petitioner has not demonstrated that he
was prejudiced by said defects (see Matter of Austin v
Annucci, 145 A.D.3d 1263, 1264 ; Matter of
Caraway v Annucci, 144 A.D.3d 1296, 1298 , lv
denied 29 N.Y.3d 903');">29 N.Y.3d 903 ). Nor was petitioner's
request for testimony from the dorm officer improperly
denied, given that the requested testimony would have been
cumulative and redundant (see Matter of Wood v
Annucci, 158 A.D.3d 856, 858 ; Matter of White
v Fischer, 121 A.D.3d 1478, 1479 ).
Petitioner's remaining contentions have either not been
preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.
P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
that the determination is confirmed, without costs, ...