Butler v. Selsky

49 A.D.3d 1122, 853 N.Y.2d 709
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 27, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1122 (Butler 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
Butler v. Selsky, 49 A.D.3d 1122, 853 N.Y.2d 709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

During a search of petitioner’s prison cell, a correction officer discovered a broken razor with a missing blade, which blade had been removed and hidden inside some paperwork. As a consequence, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with altering state property, possessing an altered item and destroying state property. At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all three charges. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who performed the cell search and authored the report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Davis v Goord, 34 AD3d 1027, 1027 [2006]). Petitioner’s exculpatory statements, [1123]*1123including his claim that he accidentally broke the razor by stepping on it, presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Vigliotti v Selsky, 45 AD3d 946, 946-947 [2007]). Regarding deficiencies in the hearing transcript, they are not so significant as to preclude meaningful review by this Court (see Matter of Lewis v Goord, 43 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2007]). Finally, petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer failed to assess his mental health status is unpreserved for our review given petitioner’s failure to raise it at the disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Spirles v Goord, 308 AD2d 610, 611 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., 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

Abreu v. Bezio
71 A.D.3d 1341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Pedraza v. Fischer
65 A.D.3d 1434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Villafane v. Fischer
63 A.D.3d 1403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Wigfall v. Goord
53 A.D.3d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 1122, 853 N.Y.2d 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2008.