Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Wingate v. Martuscello
Turning to petitioner's procedural arguments, although petitioner was not present for the search of his cell, "cell searches may properly be conducted in an [incarcerated individual's] absence," and there is no evidence here that petitioner was excluded rather than just in a different location at the time ( Matter of Mingo v Chappius , 106 AD3d 1160, 1161 [3d Dept 2013]; cf. Matter of Kirby v Annucci , 147 AD3d 1134, 1135 [3d Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Atkins v. Annucci
Respondent concedes, and we agree, that the disciplinary determination — insofar as it found petitioner guilty of possessing drugs and smuggling — is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled to that extent ( see Matter of Kirby v Annucci , 147 AD3d 1134, 1134 [2017]; Matter of Chisholm v Annucci , 135 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Alston v. Annucci
We also reject petitioner’s contention that there was a violation of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4910, which “allows an inmate to observe a cell search when the inmate is removed from the cell for the search, unless a determination is rendered that such presence constitutes a safety or security risk” (Matter of Kirby v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Holland v. Venettozzi
As petitioner has already served the penalty and there was no loss of good time imposed, the matter need not be remitted for a reassessment of the penalty (see Matter of Kirby v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1134, 1134 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago v. Venettozzi
Under these circumstances, petitioner was properly denied the right to observe the search of his cell and his removal during the search was not in violation of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4910 (compare Matter of Kirby v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2017]; Matter of Mingo v Chappius, 106 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago v. Venettozzi
Under these circumstances, petitioner was properly denied the right to observe the search of his cell and his removal during the search was not in violation of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4910 (compare Matter of Kirby v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2017]; Matter of Mingo v Chappius, 106 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago v. Venettozzi
Under these circumstances, petitioner was properly denied the right to observe the search of his cell and his removal during the search was not in violation of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4910 (compare Matter of Kirby v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2017]; Matter of Mingo v Chappius, 106 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2013]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Reed v. Annucci
Upon reviewing the record, we agree and find that this determination must be annulled and all references to it expunged from petitioner’s institutional record (see Matter of Mingo v Chappius, 106 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2013]; compare Matter of Kirby v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of John Robinson, Petitioner,
v.
Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent
v.
Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent
523048.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 2, 2017.
McCarthy, Lynch, Devine, Clark, Mulvey.
Published
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 a prison disciplinary rule.
Determination confirmed. No opinion.
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.