Toliver v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toliver v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services

98 A.D.3d 1151, 950 N.Y.S.2d 798

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A.D.3d 1151 (Toliver v. Commissioner of 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

Toliver v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services, 98 A.D.3d 1151, 950 N.Y.S.2d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

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 Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with disobeying a direct order and violating a movement regulation after he refused a correction officer’s direction to go to the clinic to retrieve his mandatory medication. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony of the reporting officer, a facility nurse and petitioner’s own admission that he did not report as directed, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lashway v Fischer, 91 AD3d 1239 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 805 [2012]; Matter of Crenshaw v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1189, 1190 [2011]). Although petitioner claimed that, due to pain, he was unable to leave his bed to comply with the directive, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Green v Bradt, 79 AD3d 1566, 1567 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 709 [2011]). Notably, a facility nurse testified that petitioner had reported for medication the previous five days and petitioner acknowledged that he was able to leave his bed and stand for the inmate “count” approximately 30 minutes before he was ordered to report to the clinic.

Finally, petitioner’s constitutional claims and assertion that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for grievances he filed are all being raised for the first time and, therefore, they are unpreserved for this Court’s review (see Matter of Hamilton v Bezio, 76 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2010]; Matter of Me[1152]*1152Collum v Fischer, 61 AD3d 1194 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 703 [2009]).

Peters, EJ., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with disobeying a direct order and violating a movement regulation after he refused a correction officer’s direction to go to the clinic to retrieve his mandatory medication. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony of the reporting officer, a facility nurse and petitioner’s own admission that he did not report as directed, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lashway v Fischer, 91 AD3d 1239 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 805 [2012]; Matter of Crenshaw v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1189, 1190 [2011]). Although petitioner claimed that, due to pain, he was unable to leave his bed to comply with the directive, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Green v Bradt, 79 AD3d 1566, 1567 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 709 [2011]). Notably, a facility nurse testified that petitioner had reported for medication the previous five days and petitioner acknowledged that he was able to leave his bed and stand for the inmate “count” approximately 30 minutes before he was ordered to report to the clinic.

Finally, petitioner’s constitutional claims and assertion that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for grievances he filed are all being raised for the first time and, therefore, they are unpreserved for this Court’s review (see Matter of Hamilton v Bezio, 76 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2010]; Matter of Me[1152]*1152Collum v Fischer, 61 AD3d 1194 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 703 [2009]).

Peters, EJ., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.3d 1151, 950 N.Y.S.2d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toliver-v-commissioner-of-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack