Kelly v. Department of Correctional Services

75 A.D.3d 672, 903 N.Y.S.2d 272
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 75 A.D.3d 672 (Kelly v. Department of Correctional Services) 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
Kelly v. Department of Correctional Services, 75 A.D.3d 672, 903 N.Y.S.2d 272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

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

[673]*673During a pat frisk, petitioner was found to be in possession of legal papers belonging to two other inmates, as well as betting slips, a highlighter and a bottle of white-out. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing contraband, possessing gambling paraphernalia, possessing unauthorized legal materials and providing unauthorized legal assistance. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the disciplinary hearing, as well as the materials confiscated from petitioner, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Norris v Fischer, 71 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2010]). Petitioner’s exculpatory testimony and assertion that he did not know that certain items were contraband presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Silverstein v Bezio, 65 AD3d 1424, 1425 [2009]; Matter of Igartua v Rivera, 58 AD3d 1046 [2009]). We decline to consider petitioner’s challenge to his apparent transfer to another correctional facility inasmuch as it is an attempt to improperly expand the scope of the original petition (see Matter of Hernandez v Walsh, 30 AD3d 703, 704 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]).

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, 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

Related

Matter of King v. Annucci
184 N.Y.S.3d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Briggs v. Lilley
2020 NY Slip Op 1691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Haigler v. Lilley
2019 NY Slip Op 5258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Williams v. Smith
138 A.D.3d 1330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Goode v. Chappius
118 A.D.3d 1225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Haughey v. Artus
108 A.D.3d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Smith v. Fischer
85 A.D.3d 1481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 A.D.3d 672, 903 N.Y.S.2d 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2010.