Matter of Glanda v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Glanda v. Annucci

2017 NY Slip Op 6686, 153 A.D.3d 1531, 60 N.Y.S.3d 709

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2017

Docket524062

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6686 (Matter of Glanda 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 Glanda v. Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 6686, 153 A.D.3d 1531, 60 N.Y.S.3d 709 (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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent placing petitioner in involuntary protective custody.

Petitioner, an inmate who is confined to a wheelchair, was confronted by two other inmates regarding his use of a handicap-accessible shower. During a heated discussion, one of the inmates struck petitioner in the face with a combination lock. As a result, a correction lieutenant issued a recommendation that petitioner be placed in involuntary protective custody. A hearing on the matter was subsequently conducted, after which the Hearing Officer agreed with the recommendation and placed petitioner in involuntary protective custody. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, although petitioner has been released from involuntary protective custody and transferred to another correctional facility, the petition is not moot given that he seeks expungement of the determination from his institutional record (see Matter of Melendez v Commissioner of the Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 127 AD3d 1369, 1369-1370 [2015]; Matter of Jones v Fischer, 126 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2015]). Turning to the merits, the involuntary protective custody recommendation, together with the testimony of the lieutenant who prepared it and petitioner’s own testimony, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination upholding the recommendation (see generally Matter of Jones v Fischer, 126 AD3d at 1218; Matter of Robinson v Fischer, 82 AD3d 1630, 1631 [2011]). Furthermore, we do not find that petitioner was improperly denied the right to call three correction officers as witnesses given that they had no personal knowledge of the incident and their testimony would have been irrelevant (see Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]; Matter of Lane v Kirkpatrick, 68 AD3d 1280, 1281 [2009]). In view of the foregoing, we decline to disturb respondent’s determination.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent placing petitioner in involuntary protective custody.

Petitioner, an inmate who is confined to a wheelchair, was confronted by two other inmates regarding his use of a handicap-accessible shower. During a heated discussion, one of the inmates struck petitioner in the face with a combination lock. As a result, a correction lieutenant issued a recommendation that petitioner be placed in involuntary protective custody. A hearing on the matter was subsequently conducted, after which the Hearing Officer agreed with the recommendation and placed petitioner in involuntary protective custody. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, although petitioner has been released from involuntary protective custody and transferred to another correctional facility, the petition is not moot given that he seeks expungement of the determination from his institutional record (see Matter of Melendez v Commissioner of the Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 127 AD3d 1369, 1369-1370 [2015]; Matter of Jones v Fischer, 126 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2015]). Turning to the merits, the involuntary protective custody recommendation, together with the testimony of the lieutenant who prepared it and petitioner’s own testimony, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination upholding the recommendation (see generally Matter of Jones v Fischer, 126 AD3d at 1218; Matter of Robinson v Fischer, 82 AD3d 1630, 1631 [2011]). Furthermore, we do not find that petitioner was improperly denied the right to call three correction officers as witnesses given that they had no personal knowledge of the incident and their testimony would have been irrelevant (see Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]; Matter of Lane v Kirkpatrick, 68 AD3d 1280, 1281 [2009]). In view of the foregoing, we decline to disturb respondent’s determination.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey 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 6686, 153 A.D.3d 1531, 60 N.Y.S.3d 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-glanda-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack