Matter of Thelonious Ragin v Glenn S. Goord

Matter of Ragin v Goord 2003 NY Slip Op 18957 [1 AD3d 842] November 26, 2003 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 28, 2004

In the Matter of Thelonious Ragin, Petitioner,
v
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

— 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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting violent conduct, creating a disturbance, interference with a facility employee, harassment, refusing to obey a direct order and threatening violence. According to the misbehavior report and testimony given at the disciplinary hearing, petitioner was attending the Ramadan evening meal held in the facility's mess hall when he became embroiled in a heated argument with other Muslim inmates. Petitioner lost his temper and began shouting obscenity-filled threats at the group's Imam (a Muslim religious leader) while menacing him with clenched fists. After initially ignoring the reporting correction officer's orders to desist, petitioner complied by leaving the immediate area; however, his shouting continued for an additional period of time.

The determination of petitioner's guilt was supported by substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony given by the correction officer who wrote it, based upon his observation of the entire incident (see Matter of Lynch v Goord, 285 AD2d 878, 879 [2001]). Consistent testimony was given by a correction sergeant who was in the mess hall when the incident took place and by inmate witnesses, including the Imam who was the victim of petitioner's verbal and threatened physical assault (see Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 271 AD2d 770 [2000]). To the extent that petitioner's account of the precipitating incident (which he characterizes as a peaceable "Islamic debate") was at variance with that given by other hearing witnesses, these discrepancies presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Giles v Selsky, 287 AD2d 829, 830 [2001]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his assertions that alleged procedural errors and irregularities denied him the right to a fair hearing, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.