Matter of Carlisle v Supt. Lee, Green Haven CF

Matter of Matter of Carlisle v Supt. Lee, Green Haven CF 2012 NY Slip Op 04742 Decided on June 13, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 13, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-01680
(Index No. 5249/10)

[*1]In the Matter of Antwane Carlisle, petitioner,

v

Supt. Lee, Green Haven CF, respondent.




Antwane Carlisle, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y.
(Michael S. Belohlavek and Ann P. Zybert of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility dated June 15, 2010, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated June 8, 2010, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating Prison Disciplinary Rule 116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][17][i]), and imposing penalties.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

When reviewing a prison disciplinary determination, the court must decide only whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884; Matter of Blanco v Selsky, 45 AD3d 679, 679-680; Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky, 36 AD3d 907). Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination that he violated Prison Disciplinary Rule 116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][17][i]) was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033; Matter of Mabry v Maddox, 57 AD3d 1000; Matter of Lewis v Connolly, 44 AD3d 665).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer was biased against him. The record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the determination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer (see Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d at 885; Matter of Smythe v Goord, 41 AD3d 608, 609).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and MILLER, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court