Matter of Medina v Annucci

Matter of Medina v Annucci 2015 NY Slip Op 03220 Decided on April 16, 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 16, 2015
519478

[*1]In the Matter of ANTHONY MEDINA, Appellant,

v

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

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015
Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

Anthony Medina, Romulus, appellant pro se.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Weinstein, J.), entered June 20, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After he refused several orders to enter his cell and made threatening comments to a correction sergeant, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, making threats, an inmate movement violation and interference with an employee. Petitioner was found guilty as charged following a tier III disciplinary hearing and that determination was upheld on administrative review. He advanced several procedural challenges to the determination in this CPLR article

78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition following joinder of issue, and petitioner appeals.

We affirm. Petitioner was properly removed from the hearing after he became disruptive and, indeed, demanded to return to his cell (see Matter of Sabino v Prack, 101 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2012]). The Hearing Officer thereafter conducted an appropriate assessment of petitioner's mental state and ability to participate in the hearing via confidential testimony (see id.; Matter of Pante v Goord, 73 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2010]). In light of that confidential testimony, the Hearing Officer did not err in refusing to call a requested witness who would have provided redundant testimony regarding petitioner's mental state (see Matter of Pante v Goord, [*2]73 AD3d at 1395). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to lack merit.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.