Britt v. New York State Dep't of Corr., 283 A.D.2d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Britt v. New York State Dep't of Corr., 283 A.D.2d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 · …so harsh as to shock one's sense of fairness at p. 751 ✓
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bennett v. Selsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
In view of the seriousness of the forgery offense alone, we cannot say that the penalty imposed is “so harsh as to shock one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Britt v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 283 AD2d 751, 751 [2001]; see Matter of Kelley v Goord, 274 AD2d 705 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 768 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gonzalez v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
With regard to the April 4, 2002 determination affirming the finding of guilt as to the initial contraband charge, we need note only that petitioner’s plea of guilty bars any subsequent challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying that determination (see Matter of Goncalves v Goord, 289 AD2d 739 [2001] ) and, in our view, the penalty imposed for this violation was not “so harsh as to shock’s one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Britt v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 283 AD2d 751, 751 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Claim of Grochulski v. Selsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Further, in light of petitioner’s three prior drug-related disciplinary violations, the penalty for the instant violation, namely, nine months in the special housing unit, one year loss of good time and one year loss of privileges, was not “so harsh as to shock one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Britt v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 283 AD2d 751, 751 [2001]; see Matter of Kelley v Goord, 274 AD2d 705 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 768 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Don J. Britt
v.
New York State Department of Corrections
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 10, 2001.
283 A.D.2d 751
Cited by 7 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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from fighting, assaulting another inmate, refusing a direct order and possessing a weapon. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged and received a penalty of 12 months’ confinement to a special housing unit with a commensurate loss of privileges and recommended loss of good time. Initially, we note that inasmuch as petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges of fighting and refusing a direct order, he is precluded from asserting that the determination in that regard is not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Rollerson v Selsky, 281 AD2d 735; Matter of Chujoi v Selsky, 272 AD2d 801, lv denied 95 NY2d 762).

With respect to the remaining charges of assault on an inmate and possession of a weapon, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the evidence adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Lunney v Selsky, 275 AD2d 820; Matter of Chujoi v Selsky, supra). Petitioner claimed that he was acting in self-defense and possessed the weapon only because he disarmed another inmate. The Hearing Officer was entitled to and did resolve these credibility issues against petitioner (see, Matter of Chujoi v Selsky, supra). Moreover, in light of the seriousness of the charges, we do not find that the penalty imposed is so harsh as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Kelley v Goord, 274 AD2d 705, lv denied 95 NY2d 768).

Finally, we note that petitioner’s remaining arguments are raised for the first time in petitioner’s brief and, accordingly, are not preserved for our review. In any event, were these contentions properly before us, we would find that they do not warrant annulment of the determination.

[*752] Cardona, P. J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.