Matter of Donah v. Prack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Donah v. Prack

127 A.D.3d 1538, 6 N.Y.S.3d 332

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

DecidedApril 30, 2015

Docket519555

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1538 (Matter of Donah v. Prack) 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 Donah v. Prack, 127 A.D.3d 1538, 6 N.Y.S.3d 332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

A correction officer unlocked the door to petitioner’s cell to allow him access to the shower. A second officer followed and, as that officer approached the cell, petitioner made direct eye contact with him and forcefully threw open the door. To avoid being struck in the head and face, the officer raised his arm to absorb the impact. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff and engaging in violent conduct. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the related documentation, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Payne v Corcimiglia, 98 AD3d 1175, 1175 [2012]; Matter of Cornelius v Fischer, 98 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]). Petitioner’s claims that the report was written in retaliation for prior grievances that he had filed, and that he hit the officer with the door by accident, presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Guillory v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1005, 1005 [2013]; Matter of Fowler v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 865 [2013]). His remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry 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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

A correction officer unlocked the door to petitioner’s cell to allow him access to the shower. A second officer followed and, as that officer approached the cell, petitioner made direct eye contact with him and forcefully threw open the door. To avoid being struck in the head and face, the officer raised his arm to absorb the impact. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff and engaging in violent conduct. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the related documentation, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Payne v Corcimiglia, 98 AD3d 1175, 1175 [2012]; Matter of Cornelius v Fischer, 98 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]). Petitioner’s claims that the report was written in retaliation for prior grievances that he had filed, and that he hit the officer with the door by accident, presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Guillory v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1005, 1005 [2013]; Matter of Fowler v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 865 [2013]). His remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry and Clark, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 1538, 6 N.Y.S.3d 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-donah-v-prack-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack