Case Name: In the Matter of Clemon Jones, Petitioner, v. Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-03-19
Citations: 126 A.D.3d 1217
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Clemon Jones, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.
Judges: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 126
Pages: 1217–1218

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Clemon Jones, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.
[3 NYS3d 641]

Opinion:
Proceeding 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 which placed petitioner in involuntary protective custody.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging an administrative determination directing that he be placed in involuntary protective custody (hereinafter IPC). Although petitioner has been transferred to another correctional facility and is no longer in IPC, his challenge to the IPC determination remains justiciable insofar as he seeks expungement of such determination from his institutional record (see Matter of Hynes v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2012]). To that end, our review of the record establishes that the IPC recommendation and the testimony at the hearing, including that of petitioner, provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Ortiz v Simmons, 67 AD3d 1208, 1209-1210 [2009]; Matter of Dawes v Fischer, 53 AD3d 902, 903 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Hearing Officer was not required to assess the reliability of the statements made by the inmate who threatened petitioner's safety. Such statements, which were relayed through the testimony of the correction officer who investigated the incident, were not confidential (see Matter of Moore v Rabideau, 250 AD2d 1008, 1009 [1998]) and, in any event, the information regarding the nature and basis for the threat was corroborated by petitioner's own testimony. To the extent that petitioner asserts that the Hearing Officer was precluded from acting as the Hearing Officer given his involvement in the related disciplinary matter resulting from the confrontation between petitioner and the inmate who threatened him, this issue is unpreserved as he failed to raise it at the hearing (see Matter of Boswell v Coombe, 231 AD2d 940, 940 [1996]).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.