Amaker v. CarpenterAmaker v. Carpenter
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with petitioner‘s testimony in which he admitted that he refused the officer‘s directive to leave his cell, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Guerin v Miller, 16 AD3d 799 [2005]). Regardless of whether petitioner knew of the mandatory nature of the mental health call out, he failed to comply with an order and, in doing so, committed a movement violation. We have considered petitioner‘s remaining claims, to the extent they are properly before us, and find them to be unavailing.
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.