Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed a CPLR Article 78 petition challenging a prison disciplinary determination that found the petitioner guilty of possessing contraband and an altered item. The court held that substantial evidence supported the findings, relying on correction officer testimony identifying a green leafy substance as synthetic marijuana and photographic evidence of the altered coolers. Credibility disputes regarding the petitioner's denial of possession were properly resolved by the hearing officer. The court affirmed the department's determination and dismissed the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the contraband charge should be dismissed because the items were not adequately identified as contraband
- Whether the administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence
Holdings
- The contraband charge is affirmed; the correction officer’s testimony and the hidden nature of the substance constitute substantial evidence of possession of unauthorized contraband.
- The determination of guilt for the altered item is affirmed as supported by substantial evidence.
Key quotations
“Given this testimony, and the fact that the substance was secreted in a hidden compartment, substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner possessed unauthorized contraband in violation of the disciplinary rule.” (at 1)
Factual background
Petitioner was found with two styrofoam coolers containing hidden compartments; a Ziploc bag in a compartment held a green leafy substance identified by a correction officer as synthetic marijuana. The hearing officer found petitioner guilty of possession of an altered item and contraband.
Procedural history
The matter originated in a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision disciplinary hearing, followed by an administrative review affirming the finding, which was then challenged in this article 78 proceeding.