Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

Ayala v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 9, 1996

227 A.D.2d 752; 642 N.Y.S.2d 98; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4993

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Odom v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
McBride v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Odom v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
McBride v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Johnson v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Farid v. Coombe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
McGrue v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Livingston v. Coombe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Garcia v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
McCain v. Coombe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Green v. Coombe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Wilson v. Coombe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

*753While an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, petitioner was found, guilty of assaulting another inmate, engaging in violent conduct and disturbing the order of the facility. He argues that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Petitioner testified that he was in his cell having breakfast at the time of the incident and an inmate with whom he was having breakfast corroborated his testimony. However, a confidential informant, who was personally interviewed by the Hearing Officer, directly implicated petitioner and his breakfast companion in the assault. It was for the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of this conflicting testimony. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the administrative determination. Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.