Palacio v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

12 A.D.3d 994, 784 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14301

This text of 12 A.D.3d 994 (Palacio v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) 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
Palacio v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 12 A.D.3d 994, 784 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to, this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

[995]*995Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating facility correspondence procedures after he attempted to send a personal letter through the legal mail at the prison where he was incarcerated. He was found guilty of this charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal. He then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging it.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with petitioner’s admission that he drafted the letter and attempted to send it through the legal mail to a physician at her residence address, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Jackson v Portuondo, 288 AD2d 733, 733-734 [2001]; Matter of Fitzpatrick v Goord, 269 AD2d 643, 644 [2000]). Petitioner’s explanation concerning the personal references in the letter presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jackson v Portuondo, 242 AD2d 809, 809 [1997]). His procedural and constitutional claims were unpreserved or lacking in merit (see Matter of Cummings v Goord, 10 AD3d 748, 749 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Cummings v. Goord
10 A.D.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Jackson v. Portuondo
242 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Jackson v. Portuondo
288 A.D.2d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Fitzpatrick v. Goord
269 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 994, 784 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palacio-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2004.