From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

La Puma v. Lee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 12, 2014
115 A.D.3d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-03-12

In the Matter of Anthony LA PUMA, petitioner, v. William LEE, etc., respondent.

Anthony La Puma, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Andrew W. Amend of counsel), for respondent.


Anthony La Puma, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Andrew W. Amend of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, dated April 18, 2012, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated March 18, 2012, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules, and imposing a penalty.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

“A prison disciplinary determination made as a result of a hearing at which evidence was taken pursuant to direction by law must be supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Adamson v. Barto, 37 A.D.3d 597, 598, 829 N.Y.S.2d 696;seeCPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Farooq v. Fischer, 99 A.D.3d 709, 711, 951 N.Y.S.2d 579). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, the hearing testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, constituted substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's determination that the petitioner violated the subject prison disciplinary rules ( see Matter of Applegate v. Heath, 88 A.D.3d 699, 700, 930 N.Y.S.2d 882;Matter of Benson v. Brown, 84 A.D.3d 794, 922 N.Y.S.2d 786;Matter of Gilzene v. McGinnis, 300 A.D.2d 658, 751 N.Y.S.2d 785). The issues of credibility raised by the petitioner on appeal were resolved by the hearing officer, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the hearing officer's determination ( see Matter of Applegate, 88 A.D.3d at 700, 930 N.Y.S.2d 882;Matter of Benson, 84 A.D.3d at 794–795, 922 N.Y.S.2d 786;Matter of Quinones v. Fischer, 55 A.D.3d 1200, 867 N.Y.S.2d 226). SKELOS, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

La Puma v. Lee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 12, 2014
115 A.D.3d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

La Puma v. Lee

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Anthony LA PUMA, petitioner, v. William LEE, etc.…

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2014

Citations

115 A.D.3d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1612
981 N.Y.S.2d 610

Citing Cases

Davis v. Lee

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the…

Browne v. Capra

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the…