Case Name: In the Matter of John Ramos, Petitioner, v. D. Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-09-10
Citations: 131 A.D.3d 1309
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of John Ramos, Petitioner, v D. Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 1309–1310

Head Matter:
In the Matter of John Ramos, Petitioner, v D. Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.
[16 NYS3d 354]

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
A correction officer observed petitioner involved in a physical altercation with another inmate. Both petitioner and the other inmate disregarded the officer's directive to cease engaging in such conduct. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehav ior report with fighting, engaging in violent conduct and refusing a direct order. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty and this CPLR article 78 proceeding followed.
We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officers familiar with the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of James v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 127 AD3d 1537, 1537 [2015]; Matter of Nelson v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1059 [2012]). Although petitioner maintained that he was not the aggressor and was only defending himself, and his inmate witnesses backed up his claims, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Smith v Rock, 108 AD3d 889, 889 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 854 [2013]). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner's assertions that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. Pursuant to 7 NYCRR 254.1, the Hearing Officer was authorized to conduct the hearing, and there is no indication that he was involved in the investigation of the incident or that his review of the final unusual incident report, in his capacity as a captain, required his disqualification (see Matter of Rogers v Prack, 118 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 916 [2015]; Matter of Sime v Goord, 30 AD3d 887, 888 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 717 [2006]). Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's claim, the penalty imposed, which was reduced on administrative appeal, is not so excessive as to be " 'shocking to one's sense of fairness' " (Matter of Taylor v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2011], quoting Matter of Phipps v Fischer, 82 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2011]; see Matter of Berry v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1411, 1412 [2010]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have either not been preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.
Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.