Matter of Muhammad v. Gonyea

2017 NY Slip Op 8763, 156 A.D.3d 1068, 65 N.Y.S.3d 466, 2017 WL 6374689
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 2017
Docket523560
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8763 (Matter of Muhammad v. Gonyea) 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 Muhammad v. Gonyea, 2017 NY Slip Op 8763, 156 A.D.3d 1068, 65 N.Y.S.3d 466, 2017 WL 6374689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

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.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smoking and possessing authorized property in an unauthorized area. According to the report, a correction officer smelled smoke coming from inside an inmate bathroom. Petitioner was observed exiting the bathroom and was ordered to empty his pockets, revealing a cigarette lighter and three cigarettes. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of smoking, but guilty of the remaining charge. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Vega v Prack, 141 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2016]; Matter of Shepherd v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision, 123 AD3d 1283, 1283 [2014]). Petitioner’s contention that he was unaware that he was not authorized to have the items in the bathroom is belied by his admission at the hearing that he knew the items were unauthorized in that area and had forgotten that they were in his pocket. We note that, even assuming that petitioner unintentionally carried the items into the bathroom, the rule that he violated “applies regardless of [his] intent” (Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 26 NY3d 983, 986 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, 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 Maldonado v. Venettozzi
2018 NY Slip Op 2533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Thomas v. Annucci
2018 NY Slip Op 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 8763, 156 A.D.3d 1068, 65 N.Y.S.3d 466, 2017 WL 6374689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-muhammad-v-gonyea-nyappdiv-2017.