From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 21, 2016
138 A.D.3d 1330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

04-21-2016

In the Matter of Kenyatta WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Joseph SMITH, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Kenyatta Williams, Fallsburg, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Kenyatta Williams, Fallsburg, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with possession of gambling paraphernalia and engaging in an unauthorized exchange following a search of his prison cell during which a correction officer discovered and confiscated a piece of paper listing the names of other inmates and items owed to petitioner. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. That determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, respondent concedes, and we agree, that the part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of an unauthorized exchange is not supported by the record, and, therefore, the determination must be annulled to that extent. Inasmuch as the penalty has already been served, and it does not appear that any loss of good time was imposed, there is no need to remit the matter for a redetermination of the penalty (see Matter of Branch v. Annucci, 133 A.D.3d 942, 943, 18 N.Y.S.3d 567 [2015] ; Matter of Simmons v. LaValley, 130 A.D.3d 1126, 1127, 12 N.Y.S.3d 390 [2015] ). Turning to the remaining charge of possessing gambling paraphernalia, the misbehavior report, the documentary evidence and the hearing testimony of the correction officer, who authored the misbehavior report and described the confiscated piece of paper as a collection slip, provided substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lumpkin v. Fischer, 93 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 940 N.Y.S.2d 344 [2012] ; Matter of Sweeter v. Coughlin, 221 A.D.2d 741, 741, 633 N.Y.S.2d 649 [1995] ). Petitioner's exculpatory testimony and assertion that the confiscated piece of paper listing the names of other inmates was a commissary shopping list presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Kelly v. Department of Correctional Servs., 75 A.D.3d 672, 673, 903 N.Y.S.2d 272 [2010] ). To the extent that petitioner's remaining contentions, including that the misbehavior report was insufficiently detailed to provide adequate notice of the gambling charge, were preserved for our review, those contentions have been reviewed and found to be unavailing (see Matter of Gonzalez v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1203, 1204, 995 N.Y.S.2d 859 [2014] ; Matter of Brickhouse v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d 1147, 1148, 950 N.Y.S.2d 794 [2012] ).

ADJUDGED that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of an unauthorized exchange; petition granted to that extent and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this charge from petitioner's institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.

GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., DEVINE and CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 21, 2016
138 A.D.3d 1330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Williams v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Kenyatta WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Joseph SMITH, as…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2016

Citations

138 A.D.3d 1330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
138 A.D.3d 1330
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3045

Citing Cases

Briggs v. Lilley

However, given that petitioner has served his penalty and no loss of good time was recommended, remittal for…