Opinion
11-18-2016
In the Matter of Luis ROSALES, Petitioner, v. Donald E. VENETOZZI, Director, Special Housing Unit, Disp. Program, and New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondents.
Luis Rosales, Petitioner Pro Se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of Counsel), for Respondents.
Luis Rosales, Petitioner Pro Se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of Counsel), for Respondents.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), petitioner challenges the determination placing him in administrative segregation (see 7 NYCRR 301.4 ). Petitioner contends that the administrative segregation recommendation was vague and deprived him of the opportunity to present his views at the hearing. We reject that contention. “A petitioner's due process rights with respect to matters of involuntary administrative segregation are ‘satisfied by notice to petitioner and an opportunity to present his [or her] views' ” (Matter of Gutierrez v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1463, 1463, 968 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 855, 2013 WL 6097189rearg. denied 23 N.Y.3d 938, 987 N.Y.S.2d 591, 10 N.E.3d 1146 ; see Matter of Blake v. Coughlin, 189 A.D.2d 1016, 1017, 592 N.Y.S.2d 519 ; see also Matter of Abdus–Samad v. Annucci, 141 A.D.3d 1101, 1101, 37 N.Y.S.3d 360 ; Matter of Roe v. Selsky, 250 A.D.2d 935, 936, 673 N.Y.S.2d 238 ). Here, we conclude that the administrative segregation recommendation could not have included greater detail without compromising confidential information and the person from whom that information was obtained (see Roe, 250 A.D.2d at 936, 673 N.Y.S.2d 238 ). Moreover, the hearing record, including the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner in connection therewith, supports the fact that petitioner was generally aware of the basis of the administrative segregation recommendation. Thus, given the particular circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that petitioner was provided sufficient notice and an opportunity to present his views at the hearing. Contrary to petitioner's further contention, the determination placing him in administrative segregation is supported by substantial evidence, including the confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer (see Abdus–Samad, 141 A.D.3d at 1102, 37 N.Y.S.3d 360 ; Matter of H'Shaka v. Fischer, 121 A.D.3d 1455, 1456, 995 N.Y.S.2d 404, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 913, 2015 WL 175229 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.