Matter of Hyatt v Annucci

Matter of Hyatt v Annucci 2015 NY Slip Op 03429 Decided on April 23, 2015 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: April 23, 2015
519022

[*1]In the Matter of SHANE HYATT, Petitioner,

v

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

Shane Hyatt, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, refused a correction officer's directive to return to his cell and stood with his foot against the cell door, thereby preventing it from closing. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, harassment, interference with an employee, refusal of a search or frisk, and a movement regulation violation. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order and a movement regulation violation, but not guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78

proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who authored the report and video of the incident provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Quinn, 120 AD3d 1509, 1510 [2014]; Matter of Toliver v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 107 AD3d 1263, 1263 [2013]). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the written statement setting forth the evidence relied upon adequately complied with the regulatory requirements (see 7 NYCRR 254.7 [a] [5]; Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1203, 1204 [2014]; Matter of Ortega v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2014]). Further, the record establishes that petitioner's right to present witnesses was not infringed (see generally Matter of Hill v Selsky, 19 AD3d 64, 66-67 [*2][2005]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.