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: Rodney JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES et al., Respondents.
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 Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit impersonation, engaging in third-party telephone calls and possessing contraband. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, during the course of which petitioner ultimately pleaded guilty to all charges and a penalty was imposed. Upon administrative review, the penalty was modified to 80 days in the special housing unit with a corresponding loss of recreation, package, commissary, special events and earphone/radio privileges, together with a six-month loss of telephone privileges. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination.
We confirm. Petitioner's guilty plea precludes any evidentiary challenge to the underlying determination (see Matter of Tayler v. Selsky, 49 A.D.3d 1060, 853 N.Y.S.2d 441 [2008]; Matter of Figueroa v. Selsky, 49 A.D.3d 1059, 853 N.Y.S.2d 443 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 714, 861 N.Y.S.2d 274, 891 N.E.2d 309 [2008] ). Similarly, petitioner's failure to raise any of his present procedural or due process claims at the disciplinary hearing renders those issues unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Wooley v. Miller, 13 A.D.3d 681, 786 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2004]; Matter of Encarnacion v. Goord, 8 A.D.3d 850, 852, 778 N.Y.S.2d 562 [2004] ). As for petitioner's assertion that he was improperly removed from a certain institutional program, we need note only that such claim is more appropriately pursued in the context of the inmate grievance procedure (see Matter of Pulliam v. Waite, 8 A.D.3d 841, 778 N.Y.S.2d 323 [2004] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim that the penalty imposed was excessive, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: July 03, 2008
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)