Perea v. Fischer
| Decision Date | 20 June 2013 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jairo PEREA, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jairo Perea, Comstock, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was among a group of inmates being escorted to the afternoon meal. As the inmates reached the rotunda, they were given orders to proceed to the laundry gate. When one of the inmates was taken out of line for a random pat frisk, the remaining inmates, including petitioner, collectively refused to proceed further down the corridor despite several directives by correction staff to do so. Consequently, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order and engaging in a demonstration. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Initially, that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of engaging in a demonstration is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report and hearing testimony ( see Matter of Amen v. James, 98 A.D.3d 772, 772, 949 N.Y.S.2d 297 [2012];Matter of Chiarappa v. Fischer, 84 A.D.3d 1628, 1629, 923 N.Y.S.2d 310 [2011] ). Petitioner's exculpatory explanation for his failure to cooperate presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Mungo v. Director of Special Hous. & Inmate Disciplinary Programs, 93 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 940 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2012],appeal dismissed19 N.Y.3d 919, 950 N.Y.S.2d 87, 973 N.E.2d 183 [2012];Matter of Chiarappa v. Fischer, 84 A.D.3d at 1629, 923 N.Y.S.2d 310).1 Finally, to the extent that petitionerchallenges the evidence supporting that part of the determination finding him guilty of refusing a direct order, his guilty plea preludes such a challenge ( see Matter of Toliver v. Department of Corr., 98 A.D.3d 1170, 950 N.Y.S.2d 815 [2012];Matter of Rosario v. Fischer, 95 A.D.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basbus v. Prack
...incident and petitioner himself, provided substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Perea v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1253, 1253, 967 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2013]; Matter of Watson v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 82 A.D.3d 1435, 1435, 919 N.Y.S.2d 545 [201......
-
Poe v. Fischer
...inmate's watch as a partial payment for debts owed to him and threatened that inmate with bodily harm if he failed to completely pay [967 N.Y.S.2d 511]off the debt. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges and that determination was upheld admini......
-
Abreu v. Venettozzi
...1543, 60 N.Y.S.3d 708 [2017] ; Matter of Basbus v. Prack, 112 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 976 N.Y.S.2d 336 [2013] ; Matter of Perea v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1253, 1253, 967 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2013] ). Regardless of whether petitioner became verbally abusive, the evidence establishes his role in the inciden......
-
Howard v. Fischer
...sergeant who prepared it provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Perea v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1253, 1253, 967 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2013];Matter of Harvey v. Woods, 53 A.D.3d 988, 988, 862 N.Y.S.2d 630 [2008] ). The contrary testimony of petitioner and the......