Case Name: In the Matter of Javier Gomez, Petitioner, v. Robert Cunningham, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-17
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 1432
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Javier Gomez, Petitioner, v Robert Cunningham, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Judges: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 1432–1433

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Javier Gomez, Petitioner, v Robert Cunningham, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent.
[28 NYS3d 136]

Opinion:
Rose, J.
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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with creating a disturbance, refusing a direct order, harassment and possessing property in an unauthorized area. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of harassment, but guilty of the remaining charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Initially, respondent concedes, and we agree, that substantial evidence does not support the charge of refusing a direct order. Accordingly, we annul that part of the determination, but need not remit the matter for a redetermination of the penalty because the penalty has been completed and no loss of good time was imposed (see Matter of Hobson v Prack, 127 AD3d 1370, 1371 [2015]). Inasmuch as petitioner has limited his brief by challenging only the charge of refusing a direct order, he has abandoned any challenge to the finding of guilt with respect to creating a disturbance and possessing property in an unauthorized area (see Matter of Carter v Fischer, 117 AD3d 1262, 1262 [2014]; Matter of Staine v Fischer, 111 AD3d 999, 999 [2013]). Finally, petitioner claims that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses who had never agreed to testify and had executed witness refusal forms. This argument is unpreserved for our review, however, in light of his failure to object or request that the Hearing Officer make further inquiry (see Matter of Geraci v Annucci, 131 AD3d 767, 768 [2015]; Matter of Rafi v Venettozzi, 120 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2014]).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of refusing a direct order; petition granted to that extent and the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is directed to expunge all references to this charge from petitioner's institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.