Gray v. Selsky

37 A.D.3d 890, 829 N.Y.S.2d 271
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 890 (Gray 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
Gray v. Selsky, 37 A.D.3d 890, 829 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

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, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with violating a rule regarding urinalysis testing. According to the report, petitioner was ordered to provide a urine sample but was unable to do so within three hours. After being informed that the inability to provide a sample would be considered a refusal subject to discipline, petitioner still did not produce a sample. A Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty and that determination was upheld on administrative appeal. This proceeding ensued.

Petitioner argues that he was denied documentary evidence because he asked for the request for urinalysis test form but was never given a copy. Although petitioner did request that document and the Hearing Officer stated that he would provide petitioner with a copy, the Hearing Officer did not do so. By his failure to remind the Hearing Officer before the close of the evidence, even after being twice asked if he had any further evidence or documents to be considered, petitioner waived this objection (see Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 243 AD2d 973, 975 [1997]). In any event, petitioner has not established any prejudice as a result of not receiving a copy of this document (see id.). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose 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

Matter of Malave v. Bedard
2017 NY Slip Op 6691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Young v. Prack
142 A.D.3d 1226 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Rivera v. Fischer
72 A.D.3d 1300 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Dancy v. Goord
58 A.D.3d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.3d 890, 829 N.Y.S.2d 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2007.