Bragg v. Selsky

16 A.D.3d 875, 791 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 875 (Bragg 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
Bragg v. Selsky, 16 A.D.3d 875, 791 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

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 Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits disobeying a direct order. The record establishes that as part of petitioner’s duties as an audiovisual technician, he was to play the scheduled movie left in the audiovisual box. When a problem arose with the movie that had been left in the audiovisual box, petitioner initially was ordered to play another specified movie. While there is no dispute that petitioner could not comply with this order because the specified movie was unavailable, the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified that petitioner failed to comply with a subsequent order to pick one of six other movies which were available to play. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Allende v Selsky, 302 AD2d 764, 765 [2003]; Matter of Batten v Goord, 258 AD2d 794 [1999]). Accordingly, the determination will not be disturbed.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, 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

Pettus v. Selsky
28 A.D.3d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Carrington v. Goord
20 A.D.3d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 875, 791 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bragg-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2005.