Matter of Doolittle v. Kirkpatrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Doolittle v. Kirkpatrick

2017 NY Slip Op 6571, 153 A.D.3d 1490, 59 N.Y.S.3d 907

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2017

Docket523779

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6571 (Matter of Doolittle v. Kirkpatrick) 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 Doolittle v. Kirkpatrick, 2017 NY Slip Op 6571, 153 A.D.3d 1490, 59 N.Y.S.3d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with tampering with an electrical device, tattooing and possessing an altered item. The charges were based upon a search of petitioner’s cell, which disclosed an altered SONY Walkman with its adapter wired to a tattoo gun, which had been made from an altered beard trimmer. Also recovered were gel pens used for ink and tattoo design materials. At the tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to tampering with an electrical device and was found guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, petitioner’s guilty plea precludes any challenge to whether substantial evidence supports the charge of tampering with an electrical device (see Matter of Sims v Russo, 148 AD3d 1409, 1409 [2017]). With regard to the remaining charges, the misbehavior report, hearing testimony and photographs of the altered and tattoo-related items recovered from his cell provide substantial evidence for the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rodriguez v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 845, 846 [2005]; Matter of Motzer v Goord, 273 AD2d 559, 559 [2000]). Petitioner testified, acknowledging that all of the items were in his cell at the time it was searched and, while he offered innocent explanations for why he came into their possession and their condition and use, this presented factual and credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Legeros v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2017]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or lack merit.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Aarons and Pritzker, 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 Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with tampering with an electrical device, tattooing and possessing an altered item. The charges were based upon a search of petitioner’s cell, which disclosed an altered SONY Walkman with its adapter wired to a tattoo gun, which had been made from an altered beard trimmer. Also recovered were gel pens used for ink and tattoo design materials. At the tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to tampering with an electrical device and was found guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, petitioner’s guilty plea precludes any challenge to whether substantial evidence supports the charge of tampering with an electrical device (see Matter of Sims v Russo, 148 AD3d 1409, 1409 [2017]). With regard to the remaining charges, the misbehavior report, hearing testimony and photographs of the altered and tattoo-related items recovered from his cell provide substantial evidence for the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rodriguez v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 845, 846 [2005]; Matter of Motzer v Goord, 273 AD2d 559, 559 [2000]). Petitioner testified, acknowledging that all of the items were in his cell at the time it was searched and, while he offered innocent explanations for why he came into their possession and their condition and use, this presented factual and credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Legeros v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2017]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or lack merit.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6571, 153 A.D.3d 1490, 59 N.Y.S.3d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-doolittle-v-kirkpatrick-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack