Johnson v. Barkley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Barkley

260 A.D.2d 882, 689 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 882 (Johnson v. Barkley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Barkley, 260 A.D.2d 882, 689 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of contraband. The misbehavior report stated that on February 6, 1998 a correction officer discovered a mess hall fork under petitioner’s locker while performing a “cube” search. In our view, the clear and detailed misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officer involved in the search, constitute sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged misconduct (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Although petitioner’s inmate witnesses testified that there was no fork under the locker, this merely presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Flowers v Barkley, 244 AD2d 682, 683). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, it was his own [883]*883responsibility to make sure that no unauthorized items were present in his cell.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of contraband. The misbehavior report stated that on February 6, 1998 a correction officer discovered a mess hall fork under petitioner’s locker while performing a “cube” search. In our view, the clear and detailed misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officer involved in the search, constitute sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged misconduct (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Although petitioner’s inmate witnesses testified that there was no fork under the locker, this merely presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Flowers v Barkley, 244 AD2d 682, 683). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, it was his own [883]*883responsibility to make sure that no unauthorized items were present in his cell.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 882, 689 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-barkley-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack