Young v. Keyser, 136 A.D.3d 1084 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Young v. Keyser, 136 A.D.3d 1084 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Loret v. Venettozzi (nyappdiv, 2022-05-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Loret v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
As for the remaining charges, we find that the misbehavior report, related documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures and harassment ( see Matter of Washington v Venettozzi , 186 AD3d 1866, 1867 [2020]; Matter of Williams v Keyser , 171 AD3d 1334 , 1335 [2019]; Matter of Young v Keyser , 136 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Loret v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
As for the remaining charges, we find that the misbehavior report, related documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures and harassment ( see Matter of Washington v Venettozzi , 186 AD3d 1866, 1867 [2020]; Matter of Williams v Keyser , 171 AD3d 1334 , 1335 [2019]; Matter of Young v Keyser , 136 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Shrubsall v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The detailed misbehavior report, hearing testimony from the correction sergeant who authored it and from petitioner, confidential testimony and the notes themselves constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Young v Keyser , 136 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2016]; Matter of Messiah v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. , 52 AD3d 1133, 1133 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Sylvester v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Initially, respondent concedes, and upon reviewing the record we agree, that substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures ( see Matter of Telesford v Annucci , 166 AD3d 1155 , 1156 [2018]; Matter of Young v Keyser , 136 AD3d 1084, 1084 [2016]; Matter of Gantt v Fischer , 85 AD3d 1472, 1472-1473 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Thompson v. Kirkpatrick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
However, inasmuch as the penalty imposed has been completed and no loss of good time was recommended, we need not remit this matter for a redetermination of the penalty ( see Matter of Lewis v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1015, 1016 [2017]; Matter of Young v Keyser , 136 AD3d 1084, 1084-1085 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Haigler v. Keyser
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we annul that part of the determination, but we do not need to remit the matter for a redetermination of the penalty because the penalty has been completed and no loss of good time was imposed (see Matter of Young v Keyser, 136 AD3d 1084, 1084 [2016]; Matter of Edwards v Annucci, 131 AD3d 770, 770 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Williams v. Department of Corr. & Community Supervision
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, together with the letter that petitioner admitted writing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Young v Keyser, 136 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2016]; Matter of Marino v Martuscello, 131 AD3d 749, 750 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 910 [2015], cert denied 578 US -, 136 S Ct 1665 [2016]; Matter of Marhone v LaValley, 107 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of McBride v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Given that no loss of good time was imposed and petitioner has already served the penalty, the matter need not be remitted for a reassessment of the penalty (see Matter of Young v Keyser, 136 AD3d 1084, 1084-1085 [2016]; Matter of Chisholm v Annucci, 135 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Mays v. Cunningham
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Given that petitioner has already served the penalty and a loss of good time was not imposed, the matter need not be remitted for a reassessment of the penalty (see Matter of Young v Keyser, 136 AD3d 1084, 1084-1085 [2016]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Smith v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
The unsolicited written communication "of a personal nature" to the correction officer constituted harassment (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii]; see Matter of Young v Keyser , 136 AD3d at 1085 ; Matter of Messiah v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. , 52 AD3d 1133, 1133 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Aaron Young
v.
William Keyser, as Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 4, 2016.
136 A.D.3d 1084
Egan, Lynch, Peters, Rose.
Cited by 10 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with harassment, stalking and violating facility correspondence procedures. The charges stem from petitioner sending a letter to a correction officer wherein he wrote messages of a personal nature about the dangers of smoking. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of harassment and violating facility correspondence procedures, but not guilty of stalking. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, respondent concedes, and our review of the record confirms, that substantial evidence does not support the charge of violating facility correspondence procedures. Accordingly, we annul that part of the determination, but do not need to remit the matter for a redetermination of the penalty because the[*1085] penalty has been completed and no loss of good time was imposed (see Matter of Edwards v Annucci, 131 AD3d 770, 770 [2015]). We reach a different conclusion with regard to that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of harassment, as petitioner’s admission to writing the letter that clearly contained “messages of a personal nature to an employee” provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt as to that charge (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii]; see Matter of Messiah v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 52 AD3d 1133, 1133 [2008]). Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s contention, he was not deprived of the right to call a relevant witness as the record establishes that the witness was unaware of and could offer no relevant information with regard to what petitioner wrote in the letter (see Matter of Davis v Annucci, 123 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2014]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the Hearing Officer was biased, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures; petition granted to that extent and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this charge from petitioner’s institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.