Newsome v. Selsky

26 A.D.3d 565, 807 N.Y.S.2d 725
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 2, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 565 (Newsome 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
Newsome v. Selsky, 26 A.D.3d 565, 807 N.Y.S.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

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.

Petitioner was interviewed by a correction sergeant about a harassment complaint that had been made against him by a civilian librarian. During the interview, he became irritated, bolted from his chair, clenched his fists at the sergeant, used profane language and called him a liar. Petitioner was then pat [566]*566frisked by a correction officer and placed in mechanical restraints. He was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats and verbally harassing an employee. Following a tier III hearing, he was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who placed petitioner in restraints following the outburst, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Barber v Selsky, 17 AD3d 950, 951 [2005]; Matter of Jamison v Goord, 8 AD3d 860, 860 [2004]). Petitioner’s contention that the hearing officer was biased is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not raise it in his administrative appeal (see Matter of Cameron v Goord, 10 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]). His claim that he was improperly denied the right to call a witness is similarly unpreserved due to his failure to object at the hearing (see Matter of Toledo v Selsky, 12 AD3d 824, 825 [2004]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, 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

Matter of Wigfall v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
2018 NY Slip Op 2869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Vargas v. Bezio
69 A.D.3d 1075 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Tafari v. Selsky
56 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Britt v. Fischer
54 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rivera v. Joy
50 A.D.3d 1333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Davila v. Selsky
48 A.D.3d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 565, 807 N.Y.S.2d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsome-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2006.