From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pride v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 18, 2003
308 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

93581

Decided and Entered: September 18, 2003.

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

William Pride, Woodbourne, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from refusing to obey a direct order and harassing a staff member. Included in the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing were the misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting correction officer who stated that when he ordered petitioner to report to his regular work assignment, petitioner refused to go and then cursed at him. The detailed misbehavior report and the corroborating testimony of the reporting officer were sufficient to constitute the requisite substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see Matter of McCants v. Murphy, 301 A.D.2d 713, 714; Matter of Tarbell v. Senkowski, 260 A.D.2d 807, 807).

Petitioner's testimony and that of his inmate witness, averring that the other inmate routinely performed petitioner's work assignment so that there was no need for petitioner to report for work, is irrelevant to the issue of petitioner's guilt or innocence. Inmates are not free to select which orders to obey and which to ignore (see Matter of Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501, 516; Matter of Davis v. Goord, 301 A.D.2d 1002, lv dismissed 100 N.Y.2d 534). Nor is the use of disrespectful language to a correction officer considered acceptable conduct (see e.g. Matter of Lawrence v. Headley, 257 A.D.2d 837, 838 [1999]). The remaining contentions raised herein, including petitioner's assertion of hearing officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Pride v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 18, 2003
308 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Pride v. Cunningham

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM PRIDE, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND J. CUNNINGHAM, as…

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2003

Citations

308 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
764 N.Y.S.2d 371

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Patterson v. Selsky

We confirm. Initially, we find that the misbehavior reports provided petitioner with sufficient "notice of…

In the Matter of Claudio v. Selsky

The record indicates that he was freely provided access to all relevant witnesses and documents to which he…