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: Edward KOEHL, Petitioner, v. Dale ARTUS, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, reported to the facility's medical records door to pick up copies of medical and dental records that he had previously requested. He was asked by the medical clerk to go to the waiting room until she was ready for him, at which time she would call him. Petitioner ultimately returned to his housing location without permission. As a result, petitioner was found guilty at the conclusion of a tier II disciplinary hearing of disobeying a direct order. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, authored by the medical clerk involved in the incident, is sufficient, by itself, to provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Adams v. Goord, 45 A.D.3d 940, 940-941, 844 N.Y.S.2d 500 [2007] ). Although it is true that the report recites that the medical clerk “asked” petitioner to return to the waiting room until she was ready for him, it is clear that, when the report is considered in its entirety, it demonstrates that the clerk gave petitioner a directive that he did not have the option of refusing. To the extent that petitioner offered exculpatory statements during the hearing, credibility issues were created for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Gawlick v. Fischer, 50 A.D.3d 1282, 1283, 854 N.Y.S.2d 322 [2008] ).
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unavailing.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 13, 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)