From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muhammad v. Gonyea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1068 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

523560

12-14-2017

In the Matter of Mohd MUHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. Paul M. GONYEA, as Superintendent of Mohawk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Mohd Muhammad, Rome, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Mohd Muhammad, Rome, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smoking and possessing authorized property in an unauthorized area. According to the report, a correction officer smelled smoke coming from inside an inmate bathroom. Petitioner was observed exiting the bathroom and was ordered to empty his pockets, revealing a cigarette lighter and three cigarettes. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of smoking, but guilty of the remaining charge. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Vega v. Prack, 141 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 35 N.Y.S.3d 666 [2016] ; Matter of Shepherd v. Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision, 123 A.D.3d 1283, 1283, 996 N.Y.S.2d 406 [2014] ). Petitioner's contention that he was unaware that he was not authorized to have the items in the bathroom is belied by his admission at the hearing that he knew the items were unauthorized in that area and had forgotten that they were in his pocket. We note that, even assuming that petitioner unintentionally carried the items into the bathroom, the rule that he violated "applies regardless of [his] intent" ( Matter of Bottom v. Annucci, 26 N.Y.3d 983, 986, 19 N.Y.S.3d 209, 41 N.E.3d 66 [2015] ).ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Muhammad v. Gonyea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1068 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Muhammad v. Gonyea

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Mohd MUHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. Paul M. GONYEA, as…

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

Date published: Dec 14, 2017

Citations

156 A.D.3d 1068 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
156 A.D.3d 1068

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Annucci

The detailed misbehavior report, the testimony of its author and petitioner's admission that he was…

Maldonado v. Venettozzi

Accordingly, we annul that part of the determination and, given that petitioner has already served the…