Sutton v. Selsky

52 A.D.3d 1135, 860 N.Y.S.2d 311
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 1135 (Sutton 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
Sutton v. Selsky, 52 A.D.3d 1135, 860 N.Y.S.2d 311 (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 respondent which directed that petitioner be placed into administrative segregation.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was served with a written recommendation that he be placed in administrative segregation. Following a hearing, it was determined that petitioner posed a danger to the safety and security of the facility and, thus, the recommendation was sustained. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The record, including the written recommendation for administrative segregation, confidential documentation and confidential hearing testimony, establishes that petitioner was responsible for a “contract hit” on a sergeant in the Erie County Sheriffs Department. The record further reveals that, while petitioner was still in the county jail, “hack blades” had been mailed to him but were intercepted by the staff. In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence that petitioner’s “presence in [the] general population would pose a [1136]*1136threat to the safety and security of the facility” (7 NYCRR 301.4 [b]; see Matter of Dumpson v Fischer, 51 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2008]). Accordingly, the determination to place petitioner in administrative segregation will not be disturbed.

We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and, to the extent preserved, find them to be unavailing.

Cardona, P.J, Spain, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, 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

Outman v. Annucci
49 Misc. 3d 1129 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Matter of Valle v. Prack
128 A.D.3d 1252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Rivera v. Prack
97 A.D.3d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wright v. Commissioner of Correctional Services
63 A.D.3d 1471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 1135, 860 N.Y.S.2d 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2008.