Sagardia v. P. Chappius

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sagardia v. P. Chappius

111 A.D.3d 1187, 975 N.Y.S.2d 699

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 1187 (Sagardia v. P. Chappius) 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

Sagardia v. P. Chappius, 111 A.D.3d 1187, 975 N.Y.S.2d 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling after a nurse observed him pretend to swallow his medication and begin to walk away with the medication in the bottom of his juice cup. When the nurse questioned petitioner as to what was in his cup, petitioner quickly brought the cup back up to his mouth and swallowed the medication. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged, and this determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, inasmuch as a substantial evidence question was raised in the petition and there were no “other objections as could terminate the proceeding . . . without reaching the substantial evidence issue” (CPLR 7804 [g]), this proceeding was properly transferred to this Court (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 78 AD3d 1341, 1341 [2010]). Turning to the merits, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cruz v Walsh, 87 AD3d 1234, 1234-1235 [2011]; Matter of English v Fischer, 55 AD3d 1206, 1206 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer could reasonably infer from the evidence that petitioner intended to take the medication out of the area. Moreover, petitioner’s denial of the charge and identification of alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Bethune v Fischer, 108 AD3d 966, 967 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, Spain and Egan Jr., 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 Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling after a nurse observed him pretend to swallow his medication and begin to walk away with the medication in the bottom of his juice cup. When the nurse questioned petitioner as to what was in his cup, petitioner quickly brought the cup back up to his mouth and swallowed the medication. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged, and this determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, inasmuch as a substantial evidence question was raised in the petition and there were no “other objections as could terminate the proceeding . . . without reaching the substantial evidence issue” (CPLR 7804 [g]), this proceeding was properly transferred to this Court (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 78 AD3d 1341, 1341 [2010]). Turning to the merits, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cruz v Walsh, 87 AD3d 1234, 1234-1235 [2011]; Matter of English v Fischer, 55 AD3d 1206, 1206 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer could reasonably infer from the evidence that petitioner intended to take the medication out of the area. Moreover, petitioner’s denial of the charge and identification of alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Bethune v Fischer, 108 AD3d 966, 967 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 1187, 975 N.Y.S.2d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sagardia-v-p-chappius-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack