Lunney v. Selsky

275 A.D.2d 820, 713 N.Y.S.2d 300, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9190
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 14, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 820 (Lunney 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
Lunney v. Selsky, 275 A.D.2d 820, 713 N.Y.S.2d 300, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

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.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit inmates from possessing a weapon, fighting, assault and refusing a direct order. This determination was affirmed upon petitioner’s administrative appeal. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding and we confirm.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the misbehavior report, combined with the hearing testimony, including the reporting officer’s testimony as to her eyewitness observations, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Although petitioner claimed that he was not the initial aggressor in the fight and denied possessing the weapon and refusing a direct order, this raised a credibility "issue for the Hearing Officer to [821]*821resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v Portuondo, 247 AD2d 810, 811).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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

Quinney v. Selsky
18 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Wright v. Goord
7 A.D.3d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Sanchez v. Goord
300 A.D.2d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Rodriguez v. Selsky
295 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Proctor v. Goord
290 A.D.2d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Pena v. Goord
290 A.D.2d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Rodriguez v. Portuondo
289 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Lynch v. Goord
288 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Burr v. Goord
287 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Kalid v. Farrell
284 A.D.2d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Britt v. New York State Department of Corrections
283 A.D.2d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 A.D.2d 820, 713 N.Y.S.2d 300, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunney-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2000.