Henderson v. Venettozzi

• Decision Date: 29 September 2016
• Citation: 142 A.D.3d 1261,37 N.Y.S.3d 924 (Mem),2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06279
• Parties: In the Matter of Thomas HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 1261
37 N.Y.S.3d 924 (Mem)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06279

In the Matter of Thomas HENDERSON, Petitioner,
v.
Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Sept. 29, 2016.

Thomas Henderson, Auburn, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondents.

Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, LYNCH, ROSE and CLARK, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

142 A.D.3d 1262

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Substantial evidence supports the tier III disciplinary determination finding petitioner guilty of assault on staff, violent conduct, refusing a direct order and creating a disturbance (see Matter of Boyd v. Prack, 136 A.D.3d 1136, 1136, 24 N.Y.S.3d 457 [2016] ). Specifically, the hearing testimony and documentary evidence established that petitioner, while initially unconscious and unresponsive upon his arrival at the correction facility medical unit, became combative and uncooperative and ignored direct orders to comply with medical staff so that his vital signs could be taken. According to testimony, petitioner engaged

37 N.Y.S.3d 925

in violent, thrashing behavior and struck two correction officers with a closed fist while the correction officers attempted to subdue him. Although petitioner maintained that he was suffering from some type of seizure, medical testimony established that an examination of petitioner after the incident did not reveal any signs of a seizure or other medical explanation for his violent conduct. Whether petitioner's conduct was involuntary presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of ...