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: Quincy WADE, Petitioner, v. Dale ARTUS, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
A correction officer searched the light fixture in petitioner's prison cell and recovered a sharpened metal rod with a handle and lanyard. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possession of a weapon. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. Petitioner thereafter exhausted his administrative remedies and commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the related documentation, statements made by petitioner and hearing testimony from the correction officer who authored the report, comprise substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Martinez v. Selsky, 53 A.D.3d 989, 989, 862 N.Y.S.2d 632 [2008] ). To the extent that petitioner asserted that the weapon must have already been in the light fixture at the time that he moved into the cell, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Ubaldo v. Leclaire, 46 A.D.3d 975, 975, 846 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2007] ). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining claims, including his contention that he was denied the right to present witness testimony, and discern no basis for disturbing the determination in issue.
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: February 11, 2009
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)