Matter of Mullins v. Venettozzi

141 A.D.3d 1063, 35 N.Y.S.3d 669
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 28, 2016
Docket522109
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 A.D.3d 1063 (Matter of Mullins v. Venettozzi) 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 Mullins v. Venettozzi, 141 A.D.3d 1063, 35 N.Y.S.3d 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

*1064 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting, violent conduct, creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order. The charges stemmed from an incident in which petitioner engaged in a physical altercation with another inmate and ignored a correction officer’s direct order to stop. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony of petitioner, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Rock, 108 AD3d 889, 889 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 854 [2013]; Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the delay in commencement of the hearing was authorized by a valid extension (see Matter of Castillo v Fischer, 120 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2014]; Matter of Pooler v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]). Finally, in light of the circumstances presented, the penalty assessed is not so shocking to one’s sense of fairness as to be excessive (see Matter of Jamison v State of N.Y. Dept. of Corr. Servs., 98 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2012]; Matter of Barnes v Prack, 92 AD3d 990, 991 [2012]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, 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 Romero v. Gonyea
2018 NY Slip Op 1689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Williams v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 6694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Legeros v. Annucci
147 A.D.3d 1175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 A.D.3d 1063, 35 N.Y.S.3d 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mullins-v-venettozzi-nyappdiv-2016.