Matter of Davis v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Davis v. Annucci

123 A.D.3d 1279, 996 N.Y.S.2d 404

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2014

Docket518754

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 1279 (Matter of Davis 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 Davis v. Annucci, 123 A.D.3d 1279, 996 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assault, committing a sex offense, interfering with staff, being out of place, and leaving an assigned area without authorization. The charges stem from an incident wherein petitioner, while working as a porter in the infirmary, allegedly touched a nurse’s buttocks and, after being rebuked by the nurse, left his assigned area and returned to his cell without authorization. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. On administrative appeal, the determination was modified to the extent that the assault charge was dismissed and the penalty reduced. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, unusual incident report and testimony at the hearing, including that of the nurse involved in the incident, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lewis v Leclaire, 48 AD3d 875, 875 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the intentional and unprovoked rubbing of an intimate part of the nurse’s body constitutes a violation of the rule charged (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [2] [ii]; see also Matter of Gibson v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 862, 863 [1988]).

We are also unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the right to call a witness. The record reflects that the requested witness was not present during the incident and could offer no material or relevant information with regard to the charges (see Matter of Credell v Fischer, 120 AD3d 857, 857 [2014]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Clark, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assault, committing a sex offense, interfering with staff, being out of place, and leaving an assigned area without authorization. The charges stem from an incident wherein petitioner, while working as a porter in the infirmary, allegedly touched a nurse’s buttocks and, after being rebuked by the nurse, left his assigned area and returned to his cell without authorization. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. On administrative appeal, the determination was modified to the extent that the assault charge was dismissed and the penalty reduced. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, unusual incident report and testimony at the hearing, including that of the nurse involved in the incident, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lewis v Leclaire, 48 AD3d 875, 875 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the intentional and unprovoked rubbing of an intimate part of the nurse’s body constitutes a violation of the rule charged (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [2] [ii]; see also Matter of Gibson v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 862, 863 [1988]).

We are also unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the right to call a witness. The record reflects that the requested witness was not present during the incident and could offer no material or relevant information with regard to the charges (see Matter of Credell v Fischer, 120 AD3d 857, 857 [2014]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 1279, 996 N.Y.S.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-davis-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack