From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sylvester v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 1, 2019
175 A.D.3d 783 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

528111

08-01-2019

In the Matter of Peter SYLVESTER, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Peter Sylvester, Alden, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Peter Sylvester, Alden, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. During a search of petitioner's cell, several draft letters were found that, among other things, sought to solicit businesses to apply for consideration as secured vendors in the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision's pilot inmate package program. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with unauthorized solicitation of goods or services, possessing contraband and violating facility correspondence procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, respondent concedes, and upon reviewing the record we agree, that substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures (see Matter of Telesford v. Annucci, 166 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 86 N.Y.S.3d 317 [2018] ; Matter of Young v. Keyser, 136 A.D.3d 1084, 1084, 25 N.Y.S.3d 389 [2016] ; Matter of Gantt v. Fischer, 85 A.D.3d 1472, 1472–1473, 926 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2011] ). However, as no loss of good time was imposed and petitioner has already served the penalty, the matter need not be remitted for a reassessment of the penalty (see e.g. Matter of White v. Annucci, 169 A.D.3d 1326, 1327, 95 N.Y.S.3d 395 [2019], lv dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 1048, 103 N.Y.S.3d 21, 126 N.E.3d 1061 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 908, 2019 WL 2461615 [2019] ).

Turning to the balance of the determination, the misbehavior report, related documentary evidence, including the confiscated letters, and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Killimayer v. Venettozzi, 149 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 50 N.Y.S.3d 897 [2017] ; Matter of Boykin v. Prack, 137 A.D.3d 1393, 1394, 27 N.Y.S.3d 704 [2016] ). Petitioner's denial of the charges and his contention that he was allowed to possess the confiscated letters in his capacity as a member on the inmate liaison committee created credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Killimayer v. Venettozzi, 149 A.D.3d at 1457, 50 N.Y.S.3d 897 ; Matter of Simmons v. LaValley, 130 A.D.3d 1126, 1127, 12 N.Y.S.3d 390 [2015] ; Matter of McCall v. Annucci, 123 A.D.3d 1267, 1268, 996 N.Y.S.2d 557 [2014] ). Moreover, as "[i]nmates involved in attempts or conspiracies to violate institutional rules of conduct ... will be punishable to the same degree as violators of such rules" ( 7 NYCRR 270.3 [b] ), we reject petitioner's contention that the charges cannot be sustained because there was no proof presented that petitioner had actually solicited any businesses to participate in the secured vendor program (see Matter of Douglas v. Annucci, 153 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 56 N.Y.S.3d 907 [2017] ; Matter of Killimayer v. Venettozzi, 149 A.D.3d at 1457, 50 N.Y.S.3d 897 ; Matter of Gomez v. Fischer, 89 A.D.3d 1341, 1341, 934 N.Y.S.2d 521 [2011] ). We have considered petitioner's remaining procedural claims, including his contention that he received inadequate employee assistance, and, to the extent that they are preserved for our review, find that they are without merit.

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Sylvester v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 1, 2019
175 A.D.3d 783 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Sylvester v. Venettozzi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PETER SYLVESTER, Petitioner, v. DONALD VENETTOZZI, as…

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

Date published: Aug 1, 2019

Citations

175 A.D.3d 783 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
106 N.Y.S.3d 419
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6042

Citing Cases

Rose v. Lilley

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and related documentary evidence, including a…

Logan v. Lilley

ADJUDGED that the part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of harassment is confirmed, without…