Anderson v. Selsky

297 A.D.2d 867, 746 N.Y.2d 916, 746 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8413
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 19, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 867 (Anderson v. Selsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. Selsky, 297 A.D.2d 867, 746 N.Y.2d 916, 746 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the unauthorized possession of a controlled substance. Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the detailed misbehavior report, the testimony of correction officers and supporting documentation which confirmed that a random search of petitioner’s cell had resulted in the discovery of a substance subsequently identified by laboratory testing as marihuana (see Matter of Laureano v Senkowski, 277 AD2d 613; Matter of Rivera v Goord, 261 AD2d 754). Testimony was given by the correction officers who conducted the search of petitioner’s cell and who authored the misbehavior report, as well as by the officer who conducted the laboratory testing on the substance found in petitioner’s cell which yielded positive results for the presence of marihuana (see Matter of Brown v Senkowski, 290 AD2d 906, 907).

Petitioner’s assertions of various procedural errors, allegedly committed in the drafting and service of the misbehavior report and in the manner in which the disciplinary hearing was conducted, have been reviewed and found to be either without merit or merely inadvertent and technical defects that were in no way prejudicial to petitioner’s case (see Matter of Roman v Selsky, 270 AD2d 519; Matter of Bolling v Coombe, 234 AD2d 730, 731).

[868]*868Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chapman v. Goord
49 A.D.3d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Diaz v. Goord
26 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Perez v. Goord
306 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Markou v. Goord
305 A.D.2d 882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
297 A.D.2d 867, 746 N.Y.2d 916, 746 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2002.