From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 5, 2017
150 A.D.3d 1700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

05-05-2017

In the Matter of Troy WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Wyoming County–Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Adam W. Koch of Counsel), for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold OF Counsel), for Respondent.


Wyoming County–Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Adam W. Koch of Counsel), for Petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold OF Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III hearing, that he violated various inmate rules. As respondent correctly concedes, the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 107.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][8][i] [interference with employee] ) is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore modify the determination by granting the petition in part and annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated that rule, and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner's institutional record all references thereto. Inasmuch as petitioner has already served the penalty and there was no recommended loss of good time, there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of the penalty.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination finding that he violated the remaining three inmate rules is supported by substantial evidence (see generally People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997 ). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his further contention that the Hearing Officer was biased against him because he failed to raise it in his administrative appeal, and this Court "has no discretionary power to reach [it]" (Matter of Nelson v. Coughlin, 188 A.D.2d 1071, 1071, 591 N.Y.S.2d 670, appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 834, 595 N.Y.S.2d 396, 611 N.E.2d 297 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law and the petition is granted in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 107.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][8][i] ) and as modified the determination is confirmed without costs and respondent is directed to expunge from petitioner's institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule.


Summaries of

Washington v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 5, 2017
150 A.D.3d 1700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Washington v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Troy WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI…

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

Date published: May 5, 2017

Citations

150 A.D.3d 1700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
150 A.D.3d 1700

Citing Cases

Porter v. Annucci

As respondent correctly concedes, the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 is not…

Lago v. Annucci

As respondent correctly concedes, the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 102.10 is not…