| Matter of Wright v New York State Dept. of CorrectionalServs. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06329 [76 AD3d 725] |
| August 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Fitzroy Wright, Petitioner, v New York StateDepartment of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review (1) a determination of the Commissioner ofCorrectional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules,and (2) a determination of the Central Office Review Committee which denied petitioner'sgrievance.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was removed from a mess hall program after initiatingconversations of a personal nature with a female correction officer. Thereafter, while in an areawhere he was not authorized to be, petitioner questioned the officer as to why he had beenremoved from the program. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report withstalking, harassment, being out of place and leaving his assigned area without authorization. Atier III disciplinary hearing ensued, during which petitioner pleaded guilty to being out of placeand leaving his assigned area and after which he was found guilty of harassment. Following anunsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding tocontest the determination of guilt, as well as to challenge the Central Office Review Committee'sdenial of a grievance he filed with regard to his removal from the mess hall program.
Initially, with regard to the charges of being out of place and leaving his assigned areawithout authorization, petitioner is foreclosed from challenging the determination by virtue ofhis [*2]admissions of guilt during the hearing (see Matter of Bosquet v Bezio, 69AD3d 1257, 1258 [2010]; Matterof Green v Bradt, 69 AD3d 1269, 1270 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 710 [2010]).Furthermore, as to the harassment charge, we find that the misbehavior report, the hearingtestimony and the supportive memoranda provide substantial evidence to support the finding ofguilt (see Matter of Wilson v Artus,71 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2010]; Matter of James v Fischer, 58 AD3d 981, 981 [2009]).Lastly, given that petitioner was removed from the mess hall program because of his violation ofthe disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from communicating messages of a personal nature toan employee (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii]), he has failed to demonstrate that thedenial of his grievance was arbitrary and capricious or without a rational basis (see Matter ofGreen v Bradt, 69 AD3d at 1270; Matter of Patel v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1193, 1193 [2009], lvdenied 14 NY3d 703 [2010]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined anddetermined to be without merit.
Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedeterminations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.