Gonzalez v. Selsky

294 A.D.2d 734, 744 N.Y.S.2d 49, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 16, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 734 (Gonzalez 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
Gonzalez v. Selsky, 294 A.D.2d 734, 744 N.Y.S.2d 49, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Peters, J.

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting assault on another inmate, possession of contraband that may be classified as a weapon and failure to report an injury. The misbehavior report charges that petitioner had approached one of his cellmates and smashed him in the face with two cans of condensed milk, causing serious injuries. The report further relates that on the day before the events in question, petitioner and the victim had engaged in a fight that caused injury to petitioner.

Included, in the evidence presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing were the misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting correction officer who, in the course of investigating the matter, spoke with inmates who confirmed the first confrontation between petitioner and the victim. The officer testified, inter alia, that his search of petitioner’s cell turned up two badly dented cans of condensed milk. Also presented in evidence was a statement given by the victim in which he described the fight he had engaged in with petitioner the day before the assault. While stating that he could not identify his assailant, the victim related that another inmate had encouraged petitioner to beat him up. Although petitioner’s assistant [735]*735may have failed to fully comprehend his role, we do not find that his alleged inadequacies were prejudicial to petitioner’s defense (see, Matter of Greene v Coombe, 242 AD2d 796, 797, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). Based upon our review, we find that substantial evidence supports that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of assault on another inmate

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

Related

Avery v. Goord
49 A.D.3d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rosario v. Goord
12 A.D.3d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hernandez v. Selsky
308 A.D.2d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Lamage v. Selsky
304 A.D.2d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Medina v. Portuondo
298 A.D.2d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
294 A.D.2d 734, 744 N.Y.S.2d 49, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2002.