Opinion
2012-06-13
In the Matter of Antwane CARLISLE, petitioner, v. Supt. LEE, Green Haven CF, respondent.
Antwane Carlisle, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Ann P. Zybert of counsel), for respondent.
Antwane Carlisle, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Ann P. Zybert of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility dated June 15, 2010, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated June 8, 2010, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating Prison Disciplinary Rule *484116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][17] [i] ), and imposing penalties.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
When reviewing a prison disciplinary determination, the court must decide only whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence ( see CPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 140, 524 N.Y.S.2d 30, 518 N.E.2d 924;Matter of Reyes v. Leclaire, 49 A.D.3d 884, 853 N.Y.S.2d 899;Matter of Blanco v. Selsky, 45 A.D.3d 679, 679–680, 846 N.Y.S.2d 250;Matter of De La Cruz v. Selsky, 36 A.D.3d 907, 828 N.Y.S.2d 571). Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination that he violated Prison Disciplinary Rule 116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][17][i] ) was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Mills v. Fischer, 85 A.D.3d 1033, 925 N.Y.S.2d 851;Matter of Mabry v. Maddox, 57 A.D.3d 1000, 869 N.Y.S.2d 789;Matter of Lewis v. Connolly, 44 A.D.3d 665, 841 N.Y.S.2d 887).
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer was biased against him. The record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the determination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer ( see Matter of Reyes v. Leclaire, 49 A.D.3d at 885, 853 N.Y.S.2d 899;Matter of Smythe v. Goord, 41 A.D.3d 608, 609, 836 N.Y.S.2d 437).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.