Brown v. Senkowski

290 A.D.2d 906, 736 N.Y.S.2d 638, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 866
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 31, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 906 (Brown v. Senkowski) 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
Brown v. Senkowski, 290 A.D.2d 906, 736 N.Y.S.2d 638, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

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

[907]*907Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the unauthorized possession of controlled substances. The misbehavior report stated that, during a search of petitioner’s cell, approximately 70 grams of a leafy substance, later identified as marihuana, were found in a coat pocket. Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at the ensuing disciplinary hearing in the form of the laboratory test results that were positive for the presence of marihuana, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report and whose search of petitioner’s cell led to the discovery of the marihuana (see, Matter of Rosario v Selsky, 266 AD2d 656; Matter of Jandura v Selsky, 251 AD2d 721). Petitioner’s unsupported assertion that the marihuana found in his cell had been “planted” there by correction officers presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Roman v Selsky, 270 AD2d 519; Matter of Rodriguez v Coughlin, 216 AD2d 617). The remaining contentions raised herein, including petitioner’s assertion of Hearing Officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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

Matter of Ballard v. Annucci
2019 NY Slip Op 1694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Costner v. Goord
31 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Diaz v. Goord
26 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Anderson v. Selsky
297 A.D.2d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Smith v. Selsky
294 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
290 A.D.2d 906, 736 N.Y.S.2d 638, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-2002.