Matter of Mack v Martuscello

Holding The court confirmed the disciplinary determination finding the petitioner guilty of making false statements and obstructing visibility, as substantial evidence supported the guilt. The court held that Correction Law § 138 (7) does not shield an incarcerated individual from being charged in a misbehavior report for intentionally filing a false misconduct report.

The court’s words

The misbehavior report, hearing testimony and video of the incident provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt

2026 NY Slip Op 06508, at the official text

Petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for the PREA complaint created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve

2026 NY Slip Op 06508, at the official text

This provision, however, does not shield an incarcerated individual from being charged in a misbehavior report where, as here, he intentionally filed a false misconduct report resulting in an internal and unnecessary investigation

2026 NY Slip Op 06508, at the official text

we reject his claim that the Hearing Officer improperly denied all of his requested witnesses, as their testimony would have been irrelevant, because they did not witness the incident, or redundant of other testimony provided

2026 NY Slip Op 06508, at the official text

Given the underlying factual circumstances and seriousness of the charges, we discern no abuse of discretion in designating the misbehavior report as a tier II classification

2026 NY Slip Op 06508, at the official text