From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lyde v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 1999
262 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 24, 1999

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Harold Lyde, Dannemora, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, YESAWICH JR., CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty after a tier III disciplinary hearing of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from assaulting staff, refusing a direct order and engaging in violent conduct. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner refused an order to "lock-in", bumped a correction officer in the chest and raised his arm in an aggressive manner. On administrative appeal his guilt was affirmed and we confirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the detailed misbehavior report, combined with the testimony produced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966). Although petitioner denied any wrongdoing, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v. Portuondo, 247 A.D.2d 810, 811). Finally, we note that petitioner's claim of Hearing Officer bias is unpreserved due to his failure to object at the hearing. In any event, were this contention properly before us, we would find it to be lacking in merit.

CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, YESAWICH JR., CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Lyde v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 1999
262 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Lyde v. Senkowski

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF HAROLD LYDE, Petitioner, v. DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, AS…

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

Date published: Jun 24, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 188

Citing Cases

Wales v. City of Saratoga Springs

Initially, petitioner contends that he was denied due process because the Hearing Officer was biased, based…

Wales v. City of Saratoga Springs

Initially, petitioner contends that he was denied due process because the Hearing Officer was biased, based…