Matter of Carlisle v Lee
2012 NY Slip Op 04742 [96 AD3d 837]
June 13, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


In the Matter of Antwane Carlisle, Petitioner,
v
WilliamLee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[*1]Antwane Carlisle, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and AnnP. Zybert of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent ofthe Green Haven Correctional Facility dated June 15, 2010, which confirmed a determination ofa hearing officer dated June 8, 2010, made after a tier II disciplinary hearing, finding thepetitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rule 116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [i]), andimposing penalties.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

When reviewing a prison disciplinary determination, the court must decide only whether thedetermination was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter ofLahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140 [1987]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884 [2008]; Matter of Blanco v Selsky, 45 AD3d679, 679-680 [2007]; Matter of DeLa Cruz v Selsky, 36 AD3d 907 [2007]). Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention,the determination that he violated prison disciplinary rule 116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [i])was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; Matter of Mabry v Maddox, 57 AD3d1000 [2008]; Matter of Lewis vConnolly, 44 AD3d 665 [2007]).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer was biased against him. Therecord demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that thedetermination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer (seeMatter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d at 885; Matter of Smythe v Goord, 41 AD3d 608, 609 [2007]).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall andMiller, JJ., concur.


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.