Matter of Mullins v. Venettozzi

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: July 28, 2016 522109 ________________________________ In the Matter of WILL MULLINS, Petitioner, v DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent. ________________________________ Calendar Date: June 6, 2016 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ. __________ Will Mullins, Dannemora, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Julie M. Sheridan of counsel), for respondent. __________ 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 certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting, violent conduct, creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order. The charges stemmed from an incident in which petitioner engaged in a physical altercation with another inmate and ignored a correction officer's direct order to stop. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. -2- 522109 We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony of petitioner, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Rock, 108 AD3d 889, 889 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 854 [2013]; Matter of Peoples v Bezio, 94 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2012]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the delay in commencement of the hearing was authorized by a valid extension (see Matter of Castillo v Fischer, 120 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2014]; Matter of Pooler v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]). Finally, in light of the circumstances presented, the penalty assessed is not so shocking to one's sense of fairness as to be excessive (see Matter of Jamison v State of N.Y. Dept. of Corr. Servs., 98 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2012]; Matter of Barnes v Prack, 92 AD3d 990, 991 [2012]). Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. ENTER: Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court