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: Wilfredo REYES, Petitioner, v. Wayne BARKLEY, as Superintendent of Riverview Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of disobeying a direct order in violation of a prison disciplinary rule.1 According to the misbehavior report, petitioner became argumentative about how tight his handcuffs had been applied and refused repeated orders to stop talking and using abusive language. In our view, the detailed misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer who issued the direct orders, constitutes substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Flowers v. Barkley, 244 A.D.2d 682, 683, 664 N.Y.S.2d 373). Irrespective of whether petitioner's handcuffs were applied according to Departmental of Correctional Services directives, he nevertheless was required to comply with direct orders given by the correction officer (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 Moncrieffe v. Bennett, 251 A.D.2d 925, 673 N.Y.S.2d 949). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly before this court, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Petitioner was also charged with, but found not guilty of, interference with an employee and harassment.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: May 13, 1999
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)