From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parrilla v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 19, 2002
300 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

91698

Decided and Entered: December 19, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 3, 2002 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Scott Parilla, Malone, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CARPINELLO, ROSE and, LAHTINEN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit refusing to obey a direct order, making threats and refusing to double-bunk. The charges arose out of petitioner's refusal to comply with an order to allow another inmate to move into his cell. In addition, petitioner threatened the inmate with physical harm and used racial slurs. Petitioner contends on appeal that the determination of guilt should be annulled because he is not an appropriate candidate for double-bunking due to his mental health problems. This contention is unpersuasive. Even if we were to find merit in petitioner's argument, he was not at liberty to refuse to obey a direct order (see Matter of Keith v. Coombe, 235 A.D.2d 879, 880). Inmates may not disobey the orders of correction officers even if they consider them to be unauthorized or illegal (see Matter of Ali v. Senkowski, 270 A.D.2d 542, 543, appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 886). Petitioner's only acceptable course of action was to obey the order and file a grievance (see Matter of Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501, 515-516; Matter of Rashid v. Ketchum, 247 A.D.2d 670, 671). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CARPINELLO, ROSE and LAHTINEN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Parrilla v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 19, 2002
300 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Parrilla v. Senkowski

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SCOTT PARRILLA, Appellant, v. DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 19, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
754 N.Y.S.2d 684

Citing Cases

Harris v. Kaplin

Remittal, however, is not warranted under these circumstances ( cf. Matter of Baez v. Bezio, 77 A.D.3d 745,…

Morrison v. Fischer

As for his contentions that his alleged acceptance of a double-bunk assignment while serving this penalty…