Lundy v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 10 March 2022
• Docket Number: 533331
• Citation: 203 A.D.3d 1364,160 N.Y.S.3d 923 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of Quincy LUNDY, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

203 A.D.3d 1364

160 N.Y.S.3d 923 (Mem)

In the Matter of Quincy LUNDY, Petitioner,

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

533331

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

Calendar Date: February 4, 2022

Decided and Entered: March 10, 2022

Quincy Lundy, Pine City, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Colangelo and McShan, JJ.

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.

During breakfast in the mess hall, a correction officer observed petitioner, with an object in his right hand, walk across the mess hall towards another incarcerated individual, whereupon he made slashing motions to that individual's neck and back and then exchanged closed-fist punches with the individual and two other incarcerated individuals. After several direct orders to stop fighting were ignored, force was used to quell the altercation. A weapon measuring 6½ by 1½ inches was subsequently recovered in the area. As a result of the incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting an incarcerated individual, fighting, engaging in violent conduct, creating a disturbance, refusing a direct order, violating facility movement procedures, possessing a weapon, being out of place and violating facility mess hall procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of refusing a direct order, being out of place and violating facility movement procedures, and guilty of the remaining charges. Upon administrative appeal, the determination was affirmed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, hearing testimony, documentary evidence submitted for in camera review and video footage of the fight provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Barzee v. Venettozzi, 173 A.D.3d 1580, 1580, 102 N.Y.S.3d 808 [2019] ; Matter of Townsend v. Noeth, 170 A.D.3d 1353, 1353, 95 N.Y.S.3d 654 [2019] ; Matter of Pilet v. Annucci, 128 A.D.3d 1198, 1198–1199, 7 N.Y.S.3d 734 [2015] ). The differing testimony of petitioner and his witnesses presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Barzee v. Venettozzi, 173 A.D.3d at 1581, 102 N.Y.S.3d 808 ; Matter of King v. Annucci, 155 A.D.3d 1145, 1145, 62 N.Y.S.3d 831 [2017] ).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not improperly denied any relevant documentary evidence. The preliminary unusual incident report was read into the record, and petitioner was shown photographs and the video of the incident and given a copy of a to/from memorandum that he requested. Given that he was found not guilty of the charge of being out of place, the chow list and call-out sheet requested by petitioner were not relevant or relied upon in the disposition, and he was therefore not prejudiced by the denial of these requests (see Matter of Jones v. Fischer, 139 A.D.3d 1219, 1220, 32 N.Y.S.3d 351 [2016] ; Matter of Hardy v. Smith, 87 A.D.3d 779, 780, ...