Wilson v. Dubray

54 A.D.3d 1089, 866 N.Y.S.2d 367
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 11, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 1089 (Wilson v. Dubray) 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
Wilson v. Dubray, 54 A.D.3d 1089, 866 N.Y.S.2d 367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

[1090]*1090Petitioner was engaged in a physical altercation with another inmate and, when he ignored a correction officer’s directive to stop fighting, the response team had to be called to break up the fight. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting, engaging in violent conduct and refusing a direct order. He pleaded guilty to refusing a direct order and was found guilty of all charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, inasmuch as petitioner pleaded guilty to refusing a direct order, he is precluded from challenging the evidence supporting the determination in this regard (see Matter of Britt v Goord, 40 AD3d 1321, 1322 [2007]; Matter of Price v Goord, 29 AD3d 1203, 1204 [2006]). Moreover, the misbehavior report, documentary evidence and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination finding petitioner guilty of the remaining charges (see Matter of Green v Goord, 26 AD3d 562, 563 [2006]). Even if petitioner did not initiate the altercation, this does not absolve him of guilt under the circumstances presented (see Matter of Gloster v Goord, 278 AD2d 568, 568 [2000], appeal dismissed 96 NY2d 825 [2001]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the determination at hand.

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, 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

Nunez v. Unger
93 A.D.3d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Roussopoulas v. Cunningham
76 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Wilson v. Kadien
69 A.D.3d 1104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Thorpe v. Fischer
67 A.D.3d 1101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pedraza v. Fischer
65 A.D.3d 1434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Decastro v. Prack
62 A.D.3d 1224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Stone v. Fischer
62 A.D.3d 1064 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Singleton v. Dubray
61 A.D.3d 1223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.3d 1089, 866 N.Y.S.2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-dubray-nyappdiv-2008.