From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Branch v. Connell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Mar 15, 2012
93 A.D.3d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-03-15

In the Matter of Walter BRANCH, Petitioner, v. Susan A. CONNELL, as Superintendent of Oneida Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Walter Branch, Attica, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


Walter Branch, Attica, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.

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 Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with lewd conduct and, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of that charge. After the determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We reverse. Lewd conduct is defined in the standards of inmate behavior as “intentionally masturbating in the presence of an employee, or intentionally exposing the private parts of his or her body” (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][2][iii] ). Even crediting the testimony of the correction officer who observed petitioner, the behavior alleged could not be characterized as “masturbating.” Moreover, the Attorney General's contention that petitioner was “exposing his genitals” is completely without foundation in the record. Accordingly, we find that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Haughey v. LaValley, 89 A.D.3d 1344, 1345, 934 N.Y.S.2d 524 [2011]; Matter of Tafari v. Rock, 85 A.D.3d 1529, 1530, 925 N.Y.S.2d 922 [2011] ). In light of our holding, petitioner's remaining contentions have been rendered academic.

ADJUDGED that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is directed to expunge all references to this matter from petitioner's institutional record.


Summaries of

Branch v. Connell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Mar 15, 2012
93 A.D.3d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Branch v. Connell

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Walter BRANCH, Petitioner, v. Susan A. CONNELL, as…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2012

Citations

93 A.D.3d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
940 N.Y.S.2d 358
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1849

Citing Cases

Kempsey v. Fischer

Here, petitioner was observed speaking to a group of inmates about problems with the count procedure and…