| Matter of Welch v Taylor |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04252 [51 AD3d 1174] |
| May 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Elbert Welch, Appellant, v Justin Taylor, asSuperintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 28, 2007 in St.Lawrence County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Gouverneur CorrectionalFacility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing an excessiveamount of stamps. A tier II disciplinary hearing ensued, at which petitioner was found guilty ascharged based upon his plea of guilty with an explanation. After an unsuccessful administrativeappeal, petitioner commenced a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the determination.Supreme Court appropriately converted the proceeding to one under CPLR article 78 andultimately dismissed the petition. This appeal by petitioner followed.
We affirm. To the extent that petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the disciplinary rule inissue, such a claim can only be raised within the context of a prison grievance procedure (see Matter of Pulliam v Waite, 8 AD3d841, 841 [2004]). As for petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased, it iswholly unsubstantiated by the record and, in any event, there is no indication that thedetermination flowed from any purported bias (see Matter of Chavis v Goord, 43 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2007]). Wehave examined each of the remaining contentions advanced by petitioner in his pro se brief,including his claims that he did not voluntarily plead [*2]guiltyand was denied the right to present witness testimony, and, to the extent preserved, find them tobe without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed, without costs.