Opinion
2012-10-17
In the Matter of Onel OJEDA, petitioner, v. D. VENETTOZZI, etc., respondent.
Onel Ojeda, Ossining, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Won S. Shin of counsel), for respondent.
Onel Ojeda, Ossining, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Won S. Shin of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Donald Venettozzi, the Acting Director of the Special Housing Unit at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, dated March 28, 2011, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated January 11, 2011, made after a Tier III superintendent's disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of the charge of violating Prison Disciplinary Rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][14] [i] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
In reaching his determination that the petitioner violated Prison Disciplinary Rule 113.10 ( see7 NYCRR 270.2[B][14][i] ) by possessing a weapon, the respondent relied upon a misbehavior report as well as the testimony of the correction officer who discovered the weapon following a search of the petitioner's cell, and the testimony of the petitioner himself. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, this constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charge sustained against him ( see Matter of Abdur–Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 123, 623 N.Y.S.2d 758, 647 N.E.2d 1266;Matter of Reyes v. Leclaire, 49 A.D.3d 884, 853 N.Y.S.2d 899). Any credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the hearing officer's determination ( see Matter of Mills v. Fischer, 85 A.D.3d 1033, 925 N.Y.S.2d 851;Matter of Reyes v. Leclaire, 49 A.D.3d at 885, 853 N.Y.S.2d 899).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.