Prout v. Hurburt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prout v. Hurburt

267 A.D.2d 691, 700 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12756

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 691 (Prout v. Hurburt) 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

Prout v. Hurburt, 267 A.D.2d 691, 700 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of [692]*692the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

The detailed misbehavior report and evidence confiscated from petitioner’s cell, together with petitioner’s admissions at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from possessing escape materials, possessing material relevant to creating explosives and contraband (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Notwithstanding petitioner’s assertion that the catalogues from which petitioner allegedly obtained the escape material and recipes for the explosives were permitted into the facility, the disciplinary rules nevertheless clearly prohibit such material (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [9] [iv] [rule 108.13]; [18] [i] [rule 117.10]; see, e.g., Matter of Sieteski v DiBiase, 242 AD2d 753). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, having not been raised at the disciplinary hearing or on administrative appeal, have not been preserved for our review and we decline to address them (see, Matter of Giraldi v Selsky, 253 AD2d 933).

Crew III, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, 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 [692]*692the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

The detailed misbehavior report and evidence confiscated from petitioner’s cell, together with petitioner’s admissions at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from possessing escape materials, possessing material relevant to creating explosives and contraband (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Notwithstanding petitioner’s assertion that the catalogues from which petitioner allegedly obtained the escape material and recipes for the explosives were permitted into the facility, the disciplinary rules nevertheless clearly prohibit such material (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [9] [iv] [rule 108.13]; [18] [i] [rule 117.10]; see, e.g., Matter of Sieteski v DiBiase, 242 AD2d 753). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, having not been raised at the disciplinary hearing or on administrative appeal, have not been preserved for our review and we decline to address them (see, Matter of Giraldi v Selsky, 253 AD2d 933).

Crew III, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 691, 700 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prout-v-hurburt-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack