Lovett v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovett v. Smith

80 A.D.3d 1039, 915 N.Y.S.2d 706

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 1039 (Lovett v. Smith) 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

Lovett v. Smith, 80 A.D.3d 1039, 915 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1040]*1040Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was on the telephone when an announcement was made over the facility loud speaker directing all inmates to lock into their cells for the standing count. By the time petitioner responded to the directive, the gate to his assigned cell had closed. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, being out of place, violating lock in procedures and violating count procedures. He 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 correction officer who authored it, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Pender v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010]; Matter of McLaughlin v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2010]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony, including his claim that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for his having filed a complaint, presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Lamage v Bezio, 74 AD3d 1676, 1676-1677 [2010]; Matter of Gaines v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1080, 1081 [2009]). Furthermore, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair hearing inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the determination flowed from substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt adduced at the hearing (see Matter of Boyd v Goord, 18 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., 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

[1040]*1040Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was on the telephone when an announcement was made over the facility loud speaker directing all inmates to lock into their cells for the standing count. By the time petitioner responded to the directive, the gate to his assigned cell had closed. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, being out of place, violating lock in procedures and violating count procedures. He 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 correction officer who authored it, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Pender v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010]; Matter of McLaughlin v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2010]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony, including his claim that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for his having filed a complaint, presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Lamage v Bezio, 74 AD3d 1676, 1676-1677 [2010]; Matter of Gaines v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1080, 1081 [2009]). Furthermore, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair hearing inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the determination flowed from substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt adduced at the hearing (see Matter of Boyd v Goord, 18 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ, concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 1039, 915 N.Y.S.2d 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovett-v-smith-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack