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: Kamel R. BILLUE, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner 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 respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures, committing an unhygienic act, failing to maintain cleanliness and refusing a direct order after it was discovered that he had urinated on himself rather than comply with an order to provide a urine sample for testing. He pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to maintain cleanliness and, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Initially, we note that petitioner's plea of guilty to failing to maintain cleanliness precludes him from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that charge (see Matter of Cody v. Goord, 17 A.D.3d 943, 944, 794 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2005] ). Moreover, the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who prepared it constitute substantial evidence supporting the finding of guilt on the remaining charges (see id. at 944, 794 N.Y.S.2d 149; see also Matter of Gee v. Goord, 21 A.D.3d 636, 637, 800 N.Y.S.2d 775 [2005] ). We reject petitioner's argument that he cannot be found guilty because he never refused to submit a urine sample. When petitioner was given a direct order to submit a sample, he was required to do so, if able (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4[d][4] ). Instead of submitting a sample, however, petitioner chose to urinate on himself, thereby violating urinalysis testing procedures. Petitioner's exculpatory testimony presented a credibility issue that the Hearing Officer properly resolved (see Matter of Gee v. Goord, supra at 637, 800 N.Y.S.2d 775) and his remaining claims are either unpreserved or otherwise 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: April 06, 2006
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)