From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Jermel Arrington v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Sep 22, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-09-22

In the Matter of Jermel ARRINGTON, Petitioner,v.D. VENETTOZZI, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.


Jermel Arrington, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a search of petitioner's cell revealed letters that included gang references, he was served with a misbehavior report charging him with possession of gang materials. Petitioner was found guilty of that charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing. That determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a reduction in the penalty assessed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The seized letters, along with the misbehavior report, petitioner's admissions during the hearing and the testimony of a correction officer specially trained to identify gang-related materials, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt ( see Matter of Flournoy v. Bezio, 84 A.D.3d 1636, 1637, 923 N.Y.S.2d 304 [2011]; Matter of Wheeler–Whichard v. Fischer, 69 A.D.3d 1286, 1286, 896 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2010] ). Petitioner's assertion that his guilt is precluded by the fact that the letters had passed through the mailroom is unavailing, as his possession of such gang-related material is clearly prohibited by the prison disciplinary rule regardless of how it came into his possession ( see 7 NYCRR 270.2[B][6] [iv]; Matter of Delos Santos v. Goord, 4 A.D.3d 709, 710, 772 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2004]; Matter of Johnson v. Goord, 260 A.D.2d 816, 817, 690 N.Y.S.2d 279 [1999] ). Finally, we find that the determination resulted from the evidence presented, rather than any alleged hearing officer bias ( see Matter of Montgomery v. Fischer, 84 A.D.3d 1666, 1667, 923 N.Y.S.2d 918 [2011] ).

Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be either unpreserved or without merit.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

SPAIN, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Jermel Arrington v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Sep 22, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In the Matter of Jermel Arrington v. Venettozzi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Jermel ARRINGTON, Petitioner,v.D. VENETTOZZI, as Director…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 22, 2011

Citations

87 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6517
929 N.Y.S.2d 784

Citing Cases

Smith v. Fischer

ession of gang-related material. The misbehavior report states that during a search of petitioner's property…

Smith v. Fischer

The misbehavior report states that during a search of petitioner's property upon his transfer from another…