Summary
The court reviewed a prison disciplinary determination under CPLR article 78. It annulled the finding that the petitioner violated package room procedures for lack of substantial evidence, directed expungement of that charge, and otherwise upheld the findings of smuggling and engaging in an unauthorized exchange.
Holdings
- The determination finding petitioner guilty of violating package room procedures was not supported by substantial evidence and was annulled to that extent.
- The matter did not need to be remitted for reassessment of the penalty because no loss of good time was imposed and petitioner had already served the penalty.
- The determination was supported by substantial evidence with respect to the charges of smuggling and engaging in an unauthorized exchange.
- The court found no basis to disturb the determination on the ground that the hearing officer was biased.
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported petitioner's guilt of violating package room procedures.
- Whether substantial evidence supported petitioner's guilt of smuggling and engaging in an unauthorized exchange.
- Whether the hearing officer was biased such that the disciplinary determination should be disturbed.
- Whether the penalty required reassessment after one charge was annulled.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Matter of Madden v Griffin, 109 A.D.3d 1060, 1061 (2013), lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 860 (2014)(followed)
- Matter of Hinton v Fischer, 108 A.D.3d 1000, 1001 (2013)(followed)
- Matter of Cruz v Walsh, 87 A.D.3d 1234, 1234-1235 (2011)(followed)
- Matter of Mendez v Goord, 21 A.D.3d 1191, 1191-1192 (2005)(followed)
- Matter of Miller v Portuondo, 269 A.D.2d 646, 646 (2000)(followed)
- Matter of Guillory v Fischer, 111 A.D.3d 1005, 1005-1006 (2013)(followed)
- Matter of Fero v Prack, 108 A.D.3d 1004, 1005 (2013)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…