Matter of Donerlson v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Donerlson v Annucci 2017 NY Slip Op 00710 Decided on February 2, 2017 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 2, 2017
523258

[*1]In the Matter of PATIQUE DONERLSON, Petitioner,

v

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

Calendar Date: November 29, 2016
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

Patique Donerlson, Bedford Hills, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III determination finding her guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules that prohibit possession of contraband and possession of impermissible identification, stemming from the discovery of paperwork in her cell that contained personal information of another inmate. To the extent that petitioner challenges the determination of guilt, she is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the determination given her plea of guilty to both charges (see

Matter of Clarke v Venettozzi, 139 AD3d 1221, 1221 [2016]; Matter of Shufelt v Annucci, 138 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2016]). We need not address petitioner's remaining contentions as they relate to additional charges for which petitioner was found not guilty.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

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



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.