Opinion
519022.
2015-04-23
In the Matter of Shane HYATT, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Shane Hyatt, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Shane Hyatt, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, refused a correction officer's directive to return to his cell and stood with his foot against the cell door, thereby preventing it from closing. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, harassment, interference with an employee, refusal of a search or frisk, and a movement regulation violation. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order and a movement regulation violation, but not guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who authored the report and video of the incident provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Smith v. Quinn, 120 A.D.3d 1509, 1510, 992 N.Y.S.2d 457 [2014]; Matter of Toliver v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 107 A.D.3d 1263, 1263, 967 N.Y.S.2d 518 [2013] ). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the written statement setting forth the evidence relied upon adequately complied with the regulatory requirements ( see7 NYCRR 254.7[a][5]; Matter of Gonzalez v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1203, 1204, 995 N.Y.S.2d 859 [2014]; Matter of Ortega v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1051, 1051, 994 N.Y.S.2d 742 [2014] ). Further, the record establishes that petitioner's right to present witnesses was not infringed ( see generally Matter of Hill v. Selsky, 19 A.D.3d 64, 66–67, 795 N.Y.S.2d 794 [2005] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.