Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ketchmore v. Annucci
The misbehavior report, hearing testimony and confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer provide substantial evidence supporting the finding of guilt ( see Matter of Mendez v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2017]; Matter of Mears v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Bond v. Annucci
Matter of Mears v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]; Matter of Davis v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1399, 1400 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Benitez v. Annucci
There is no indication that the victim had previously agreed to testify, and he signed a witness refusal form indicating that he did not want to be involved ( see [*2]Matter of Lebron v Annucci , 163 AD3d 1387 , 1387 [2018]; Matter of Mears v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Sumter v. Annucci
Initially, respondent concedes, and we agree, that substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of fighting as there is no evidence, confidential or otherwise, indicating that petitioner and the inmate were involved in a physical exchange of blows ( see Matter of Mears v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]; Matter of Ross v Prack , 95 AD3d 1579, 1580 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Liggan v. Rodriguez
In view of the foregoing, petitioner has been granted all the relief to which he is entitled and the appeal must be dismissed as moot ( see Matter of Terry v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2017]; Matter of Colon v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1498 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ortiz v. Annucci
The record reflects that the requested witness had not previously agreed to testify and had executed a witness refusal form, which was read by the Hearing Officer at the hearing, noting that he had no knowledge of the events in question ( see Matter of Weston v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1537, 1537 [2017]; Matter of Mears v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Lebron v. Annucci
Moreover, we do not find that petitioner was improperly denied an inmate witness as there is no indication that this inmate originally agreed to testify and the record contains a refusal form that he signed setting forth a plausible reason for his refusal ( see Matter of Mears v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]; Matter of Gano v Venettozzi , 142 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Brown v. Annucci
Accordingly, and inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot ( see Matter of Colon v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d 1498, 1498 [2017]; Matter of Gega v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1439, 1439 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ballard v. Annucci
Inasmuch as the penalty imposed included a loss of good time, we remit for a redetermination of the penalty on the remaining violations (see Matter of Mears v Venettozzi, 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Mendez v. Annucci
Furthermore, upon reviewing the record, we do not find that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Mears v Venettozzi, 150 AD3d 1498, 1500 [2017]; Matter of Medina v Prack, 144 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Sawyer v. Annucci
Accordingly, and inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Colon v Venettozzi, 150 AD3d 1498, 1498 [2017]; Matter of Brown v Venettozzi, 148 AD3d 1446, 1446 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Terry v. Annucci
In view of this, and given that petitioner has been granted all the relief to which he is entitled, the appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Colon v Venettozzi, 150 AD3d 1498, 1498 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Green v. Uhler
Matter of Mears v Venettozzi, 150 AD3d 1498, 1500 [2017]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Venettozzi, 149 AD3d 1372, 1372-1373 [2017]; Matter of Franza v Venettozzi, 98 AD3d 782, 782-783 [2012]; Matter of Green v Bradt, 91 AD3d 1235, 1235-1237 [2012], Iv denied 19 NY3d 802 [2012]; Matter of Davis v Burge, 55 AD3d 1162, 1162 [2008]; Matter of Knight v Walsh, 297 AD2d 880, 880 [2002]; Matter of Raqiyb v Eagen, 277 AD2d 528, 530 [2000]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Shearer v. Annucci
Moreover, the report was properly made by a correction officer who had “ascertained the facts of the incident” through both his investigation and participation in the search of the drain (7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [b]; see Matter of Mears v Venettozzi, 150 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2017]; Matter of Galdamez v Goord, 43 AD3d 1237, 1238 [2007]) and was endorsed by another officer who had personal knowledge of some of the relevant facts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Armando Colon, Appellant,
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
522821.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 18, 2017.
Peters, McCarthy, Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hartman, J.), entered March 4, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of possessing a weapon. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued. The Attorney General has informed this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been returned to petitioner’s inmate account. In view of the foregoing, petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and this appeal is now moot (see Matter of Lashway v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1172, 1172 [2013]; Matter of Rosales v Prack, 98 AD3d 766, 766 [2012]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.