Matter of Yancey v Conway
2007 NY Slip Op 09837 [46 AD3d 1042]
December 13, 2007
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008


In the Matter of Raymond Yancey, Petitioner, v James Conway, asSuperintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[*1]Raymond Yancey, Moravia, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner ofCorrectional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

A search of petitioner's prison cell resulted in the discovery of an ice-pick type weapon and aquantity of marihuana. Consequently, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report withpossession of a weapon and possession of drugs. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing,petitioner was found guilty of both charges. Upon administrative review, that determination wasaffirmed with a modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence including thedetailed misbehavior report and extensive hearing testimony (see Matter of Johnson v Goord, 27 AD3d 859, 860 [2006]).Petitioner's allegation that the contraband had been "planted" in his cell by a correction officercreated a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Nijman vGoord, 294 AD2d 737, 737 [2002]). As for petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officerwas biased, it is neither substantiated by the record nor is there any indication that thedetermination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of McKinley v Goord, 40 AD3d 1280, 1280 [2007],lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [2007]). We have considered petitioner's remaining [*2]contentions, including his claims that his cell was improperlysearched, the misbehavior report was deficient and the chain of custody relative to the marihuanawas not appropriately established, and find them to be unavailing.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.