Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Ali RASHID, Appellant, v. Robert KETCHUM, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered April 23, 1997 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
After refusing to move into a double occupancy cell, petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report and, after a hearing, found guilty of refusing to obey a direct order and failing to follow staff directions relating to movement within the facility in violation of prison disciplinary rules. The determination of guilt was affirmed on administrative appeal, although the penalty was modified to 180 days in the special housing unit with a loss of certain privileges and good time credit. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination. Supreme Court denied the petition and we affirm.
Petitioner's attempt to excuse his misconduct by claiming that the former double-bunking regulation (9 NYCRR former 7621.5) violated his right to practice his religion is unavailing because, even if this were so, it has been recognized that inmates are not free to disobey the orders of correction personnel, even if such orders appear to be unauthorized or infringe upon the inmate's constitutional rights (see, Matter of Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501, 515-516, 483 N.Y.S.2d 187, 472 N.E.2d 1015; Matter of Keith v. Coombe, 235 A.D.2d 879, 653 N.Y.S.2d 401). The detailed misbehavior report and petitioner's admission that he had refused the order of the correction officer to move into the double occupancy cell provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Guerrero v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 676, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1016; Matter of Knowles v. Coombe, 236 A.D.2d 659, 653 N.Y.S.2d 437).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 05, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)