State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 16, 2016 521612 

________________________________

In the Matter of ANTOINE

TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections

and Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 3, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Rose, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Antoine Taylor, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent. 

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of

violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner refused several direct orders to stand behind a

gate and then attempted to strike the correction officer who gave

the orders. He was accordingly charged in a misbehavior report

with violent conduct, creating a disturbance, refusing a direct

order and violating movement procedures. Following a tier III

disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. 

The determination was upheld upon administrative appeal, and this
-2- 521612

CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.1 

We confirm. Initially, petitioner claims that he was

denied adequate employee assistance due to his assistant's

failure to provide him with certain documentary evidence and to

interview certain prison staff. To the contrary, the record

establishes that petitioner received the requested documents when

they were available. As for the correction officers requested by

petitioner who testified as witnesses at the hearing, petitioner

has failed to indicate how he was prejudiced by the assistant's

purported failure to interview those individuals prior to the

hearing. We therefore find that petitioner was provided

meaningful assistance and has not shown that he was prejudiced by

his assistant's alleged inadequacies (see Matter of Shoga v

Annucci, 132 AD3d 1027, 1028 [2015]; Matter of West v Costello,

270 AD2d 673, 674 [2000]). Petitioner further argues that he was

improperly denied the right to call relevant inmate witnesses,

but the record establishes that the requested witnesses executed

refusal forms noting their reasons for not wanting to testify,

after which the Hearing Officer personally interviewed the

requested witnesses and verified that information (see Matter of

Rodriguez v Annucci, 136 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2016]; Matter of

Thurmond v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1234, 1235 [2013]). Finally, upon

reviewing the record, we find no indication that the Hearing

Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any

alleged bias (see Matter of Harris v Piccolo, 122 AD3d 1044, 1045

[2014]; Matter of Garcia v Garner, 122 AD3d 988, 989 [2014]). We

have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to

be unpersuasive. 

McCarthy, J.P., Rose, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

1 Although the petition raises the issue of substantial

evidence and was properly transferred to this Court, petitioner

has abandoned this issue by not raising it in his brief (see

Matter of Pilet v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1198, 1198 n [2015]; Matter

of Davila v Prack, 113 AD3d 978, 978 n [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d

904 [2014]). 
-3- 521612

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court