McClary v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McClary v. Selsky

303 A.D.2d 589, 756 N.Y.S.2d 481

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 2003·Published

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Donald Selsky, Director of the Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Program of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated January 30, 2001, which affirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer, dated December 2, 2000, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating an institutional rule, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

[590] Contrary to the petitioner’s assertion, the misbehavior report provided identifying information and the factual basis for the charges with sufficient particularity to allow him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Maya v Goord, 272 AD2d 724, 725 [2000]; Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123 [1995]; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 144 [1987]). Moreover, the determination that the petitioner violated an institutional rule is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, supra; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647 [1991]; Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674, 675 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Donald Selsky, Director of the Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Program of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated January 30, 2001, which affirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer, dated December 2, 2000, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating an institutional rule, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

[590] Contrary to the petitioner’s assertion, the misbehavior report provided identifying information and the factual basis for the charges with sufficient particularity to allow him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Maya v Goord, 272 AD2d 724, 725 [2000]; Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123 [1995]; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 144 [1987]). Moreover, the determination that the petitioner violated an institutional rule is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, supra; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647 [1991]; Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674, 675 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

McClary v. Selsky, 303 A.D.2d 589, 756 N.Y.S.2d 481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 589 (McClary v. Selsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related