Hall v. Selsky

52 A.D.3d 1078, 860 N.Y.S.2d 296
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 19, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 1078 (Hall 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
Hall v. Selsky, 52 A.D.3d 1078, 860 N.Y.S.2d 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

A frisk of petitioner found him to be in possession of 26 packets of a substance which tested to be heroin. As a consequence, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug possession and smuggling. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, after which petitioner was found guilty of both charges. Upon administrative appeal, that determination was affirmed with a modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, along with the positive drug test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cooper v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2007], appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 1026 [2008]). Petitioner’s denial that he had any drugs on him created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Jones v Goord, 50 AD3d 1427 [2008]). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claims that the chain of custody was defective, he was denied the right to present witness testimony and the hearing was untimely, and find no reason to disturb the determination.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, 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

Geter v. Fischer
97 A.D.3d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Cognata v. Fischer
85 A.D.3d 1456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Vargas v. Selsky
69 A.D.3d 1078 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
McKoy v. Bezio
67 A.D.3d 1232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Davis v. Prack
58 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 1078, 860 N.Y.S.2d 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2008.