IN THE MATTER OF ATKINS v. GOORD

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

96497.

Judges

Robert S. Rose
John A. Lahtinen

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Ronald Atkins, filed a grievance alleging harassment by a correction officer. The petitioner claimed the officer confronted him angrily, called him "stupid," and used profanities after the petitioner complained to a sergeant about the condition of his cell following a search. The Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility investigated and denied the grievance. This denial was upheld on administrative appeal. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The Supreme Court transferred the petition to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the determination denying the grievance was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the transfer of the petition to the Appellate Division was proper given the nature of the proceeding under CPLR 7803(4).
Whether the denial of the grievance was arbitrary, capricious, or affected by error of law.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v. Planning Bd. of Town of N. Elba, 238 AD2d 93, 96	Clarification that CPLR 7803(4) contemplates a true adjudicatory hearing for evidentiary support.	Used to note that the proceeding was not premised on evidence from a true adjudicatory hearing, rendering the transfer improper but retained jurisdiction was exercised for judicial economy.
Matter of Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757	Supports the interpretation of CPLR 7803(4) regarding evidentiary standards for review.	Referenced in conjunction with Wal-Mart Stores to support the court's procedural observations.
Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 83 AD2d 741, 741	Further support for evidentiary requirements under CPLR 7803(4).	Used to reinforce the procedural point about the nature of the evidence required.
Matter of Gibbs v. Miller, 10 AD3d 785, 787	Standard that denial of grievance is not arbitrary, capricious or affected by error of law if unsupported by substantial evidence.	The court applied this standard to find no error in denying the grievance based on the investigation's findings.
Matter of Zulu v. Egan, 1 AD3d 649, 649-650	Similar standard regarding the sufficiency of evidence to support grievance denial.	Applied to affirm the grievance denial as supported by the record.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the proceeding was not based on a true adjudicatory hearing as defined by CPLR 7803(4), making the transfer to this Court technically improper. Nonetheless, the Court retained jurisdiction for judicial economy. On the merits, the Court reviewed the record, noting the correction officer admitted speaking to the petitioner but denied harassment allegations. Another inmate partially corroborated the officer’s conduct, and the sergeant verified the cell search and issuance of a misbehavior report. The investigation failed to substantiate the petitioner’s claims. Applying the standard that a denial of grievance is not arbitrary or capricious if supported by substantial evidence, the Court concluded the determination was valid. The petitioner’s remaining arguments were considered and rejected as without merit.

Holding and Implications

The determination denying the grievance is confirmed, and the petition is dismissed without costs.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the administrative denial of the grievance against the correction officer. The Court did not set new precedent but clarified procedural aspects regarding the transfer of CPLR article 78 proceedings and reaffirmed the applicable standard for reviewing grievance denials supported by investigation records.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of RONALD ATKINS, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Ser

Petitioner filed a grievance against a correction officer alleging that he had been the victim of harassment. According to petitioner, the correction officer angrily confronted him, called him "stupid" and used profanities after he complained to a sergeant regarding the condition in which his cell was left after it had been searched by the correction officer. After an investigation, respondent Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility denied the grievance and the determination was upheld upon administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding challenging the determination and Supreme Court transferred the petition to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g).

Initially, we note that although petitioner alleges that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence, insofar as this proceeding is not "premised upon evidence received in the context of a true adjudicatory hearing, as contemplated by CPLR 7803 (4)" ( Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v. Planning Bd. of Town of N. Elba, 238 AD2d 93, 96; see Matter of Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 83 AD2d 741, 741), it was improperly transferred to this Court by Supreme Court. Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we have retained jurisdiction and have examined the merits of the petition.

The record reveals that the correction officer admitted speaking to petitioner, but denied petitioner's other allegations. Another inmate confirmed that the correction officer had told petitioner to get away from him, but did not otherwise corroborate petitioner's complaint. The sergeant confirmed that the correction officer had searched petitioner's cell and, upon discovering a fan that did not belong to him, issued petitioner a misbehavior report. Insofar as the investigation failed to substantiate petitioner's allegations, the denial of his grievance was not arbitrary, capricious or affected by error of law ( see Matter of Gibbs v. Miller, 10 AD3d 785, 787; Matter of Zulu v. Egan, 1 AD3d 649, 649-650). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the determination. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.