Ackridge v. Ekpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ackridge v. Ekpe

43 A.D.3d 509, 840 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2007 NY Slip Op 6305, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8850

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 2, 2007·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After attempting to speak with an inmate who was being escorted by two correction officers past his cell, petitioner refused an officer’s directive to cease such behavior. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with interfering with an employee and refusing a direct order. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges following a tier II disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the officers who were escorting the inmate, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Davila v Selsky, 29 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2006]; Matter of Giles v Selsky, 287 AD2d 829, 829-830 [2001]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony presented a question of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Thomas v Goord, 34 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions either have not been preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After attempting to speak with an inmate who was being escorted by two correction officers past his cell, petitioner refused an officer’s directive to cease such behavior. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with interfering with an employee and refusing a direct order. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges following a tier II disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the officers who were escorting the inmate, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Davila v Selsky, 29 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2006]; Matter of Giles v Selsky, 287 AD2d 829, 829-830 [2001]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony presented a question of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Thomas v Goord, 34 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions either have not been preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

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

Ackridge v. Ekpe, 43 A.D.3d 509, 840 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2007 NY Slip Op 6305, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

43 A.D.3d 509 (Ackridge v. Ekpe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related