Matter of Muhammad v. Gonyea, 2017 NY Slip Op 8763 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
Matter of Muhammad v. Gonyea, 2017 NY Slip Op 8763 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Ramirez v. State of New York (nyappdiv, 2019-09-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramirez v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
This Court has held that a wrongful confinement action cannot be based on the mishandling of a urine sample because the violation of drug testing directives does not constitute a due process violation ( see Miller v State of New York , 156 AD3d at 1068).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Maldonado v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
As to the remaining charges, the misbehavior report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Muhammad v Gonyea , 156 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2017]; Matter of Taylor v Lee , 152 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Thomas v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioner argues that his intoxication was inadvertent, we note that petitioner's intent — or lack thereof — does not negate his violation of the subject rule ( see Matter of Bottom v Annucci , 26 NY3d 983, 986 [2015]; Matter of Muhammad v Gonyea , ___ AD3d ___, ___, 2017 NY Slip Op 08763, *1 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Mohd Muhammad, Petitioner,
v.
Paul M. Gonyea, as Superintendent of Mohawk Correctional Facility, Respondent
523560.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 14, 2017.
2017 NY Slip Op 8763
2017 WL 6374689
Peters, Garry, Devine, Mulvey, Rumsey.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smoking and possessing authorized property in an unauthorized area. According to the report, a correction officer smelled smoke coming from inside an inmate bathroom. Petitioner was observed exiting the bathroom and was ordered to empty his pockets, revealing a cigarette lighter and three cigarettes. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of smoking, but guilty of the remaining charge. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Vega v Prack, 141 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2016]; Matter of Shepherd v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision, 123 AD3d 1283, 1283 [2014]). Petitioner’s contention that he was unaware that he was not authorized to have the items in the bathroom is belied by his admission at the hearing that he knew the items were unauthorized in that area and had forgotten that they were in his pocket. We note that, even assuming that petitioner unintentionally carried the items into the bathroom, the rule that he violated “applies regardless of [his] intent” (Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 26 NY3d 983, 986 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.