Matter of Baysden v. Annucci

140 A.D.3d 1519, 35 N.Y.S.3d 517
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 2016
Docket522114
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1519 (Matter of Baysden v. Annucci) 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
Matter of Baysden v. Annucci, 140 A.D.3d 1519, 35 N.Y.S.3d 517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a search of petitioner’s prison cell, a correction officer found a folded can lid with a cloth handle located inside of petitioner’s instrument case. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. The penalty imposed was modified by correction officials and the determination was later affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, unusual incident report, photograph of the weapon and testimony of the correction officer who conducted the search provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Burgos v Prack, 129 AD3d 1434, 1434 [2015]; Matter of Diaz v Prack, 127 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2015]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the hearing testimony does not establish that he was set up and, in any event, such claim presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1203, 1204 [2014]). Petitioner’s assertion that the search of his cell was not carried out in compliance with Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4910 is unpreserved.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Rose, Lynch and Devine, 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 Leckie v. Annucci
2024 NY Slip Op 04504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Mason v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 6033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Thompson v. Annucci
145 A.D.3d 1303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Marhone v. Schuck
142 A.D.3d 1232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 A.D.3d 1519, 35 N.Y.S.3d 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-baysden-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2016.