| Matter of Frazier v Prack |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03979 [62 AD3d 1185] |
| May 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Eric Sha-Mek Frazier, Petitioner, v Albert Prack,as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review two determinations of the Commissioner ofCorrectional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with providing false information,violating facility correspondence procedures, conspiring to introduce drugs into the facility andsoliciting another to introduce drugs into the facility. Petitioner pleaded guilty with anexplanation to providing false information and violating facility correspondence procedures and,following a separate tier III disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of the remaining charges andadministrative penalties were imposed. Although one of the penalties imposed subsequently wasadjusted, petitioner's administrative appeals proved unsuccessful, prompting him to commencethis CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge those determinations.
We confirm. Preliminarily, petitioner's plea of guilty to providing false information andviolating facility correspondence procedures precludes him from challenging that determinationof guilt (see Matter of Dancy v Goord, 58 AD3d 922 [2009]; Matter of Tayler v Selsky, 49 AD3d1060 [2008]). The remaining charges stem from an incident wherein another [*2]inmate's visitor attempted to smuggle marihuana into the facilityfor an inmate named "Sha," which petitioner acknowledged was his nickname.[FN*]Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to apprise himof the charges against him (see Matter of Sierra v Dubray, 58 AD3d 970, 970 [2009]).Further, the misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony and the visitor's writtenstatement, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see Matter of Fleming v Goord, 28 AD3d 972, 973 [2006]; Matter of Lovett v Goord, 26 AD3d563, 564 [2006]). To the extent that petitioner denied any wrongdoing, this presented acredibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Ohnmacht v Goord, 47 AD3d 1030 [2008],appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 954 [2008]; Matter of Ackridge v Ekpe, 43 AD3d 509 [2007]). Petitioner'sremaining contentions, including his claim of bias, are either unpreserved for our review or havebeen examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedeterminations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Footnote *: Petitioner's nickname appears inthe record as both "Sha" and "Shaw."