Wheeler v. Commissioner of New York State Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wheeler v. Commissioner of New York State Correctional Services

17 A.D.3d 378, 792 N.Y.S.2d 195, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539

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

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 378 (Wheeler v. Commissioner of New York State 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

Wheeler v. Commissioner of New York State Correctional Services, 17 A.D.3d 378, 792 N.Y.S.2d 195, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated September 16, 2003, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated July 31, 2003, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

In reviewing a prison disciplinary determination made as a result of a hearing at which evidence was taken pursuant to direction by law, the only question that may be raised in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 transferred to this Court is whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]; Matter of Ramsey v Phillips, 11 AD3d 470 [2004]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the hearing testimony, the inmate misbehavior report, and his own admission that he refused to leave his cell when ordered to do so, constitute substantial evidence that he was guilty of the charges against him (see Matter of Gilzene v McGinnis, 300 AD2d 658, 659 [2002]; Matter of Ramos v Goord, 286 AD2d 392 [2001]; Matter of Riley v Goord, 278 AD2d 327, 328 [2000]).

Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the hearing officer was not directly involved in the underlying incident and his involvement in the investigation of it was, at [379]*379most, tangential (see 7 NYCRR 254.1; Matter of Vidal v Goord, 273 AD2d 535 [2000]; Matter of Reynolds v Selsky, 270 AD2d 743, 744 [2000]; Matter of Kennedy v Coughlin, 172 AD2d 666, 667 [1991]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions cannot be raised in this proceeding to review the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated September 16, 2003, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated July 31, 2003, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

In reviewing a prison disciplinary determination made as a result of a hearing at which evidence was taken pursuant to direction by law, the only question that may be raised in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 transferred to this Court is whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]; Matter of Ramsey v Phillips, 11 AD3d 470 [2004]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the hearing testimony, the inmate misbehavior report, and his own admission that he refused to leave his cell when ordered to do so, constitute substantial evidence that he was guilty of the charges against him (see Matter of Gilzene v McGinnis, 300 AD2d 658, 659 [2002]; Matter of Ramos v Goord, 286 AD2d 392 [2001]; Matter of Riley v Goord, 278 AD2d 327, 328 [2000]).

Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the hearing officer was not directly involved in the underlying incident and his involvement in the investigation of it was, at [379]*379most, tangential (see 7 NYCRR 254.1; Matter of Vidal v Goord, 273 AD2d 535 [2000]; Matter of Reynolds v Selsky, 270 AD2d 743, 744 [2000]; Matter of Kennedy v Coughlin, 172 AD2d 666, 667 [1991]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions cannot be raised in this proceeding to review the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 378, 792 N.Y.S.2d 195, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-commissioner-of-new-york-state-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack