Thornhill v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thornhill v. Selsky

241 A.D.2d 631, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7346

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 631 (Thornhill 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

Thornhill v. Selsky, 241 A.D.2d 631, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

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 found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of a weapon. Substantial evidence was presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing in the form of an inmate misbehavior report written by the correction officer whose search of petitioner had divulged a razor secreted in the collar area of his sweatshirt. This report was “sufficiently relevant and probative” to support the Hearing Officer’s finding of guilt (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617; see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Petitioner’s contention that the correction officer “planted” the razor on him in retaliation for petitioner’s stated intention to file a grievance against him merely presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Patterson v Senkowski, 204 AD2d 831, 833). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, 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

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 found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of a weapon. Substantial evidence was presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing in the form of an inmate misbehavior report written by the correction officer whose search of petitioner had divulged a razor secreted in the collar area of his sweatshirt. This report was “sufficiently relevant and probative” to support the Hearing Officer’s finding of guilt (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617; see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Petitioner’s contention that the correction officer “planted” the razor on him in retaliation for petitioner’s stated intention to file a grievance against him merely presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Patterson v Senkowski, 204 AD2d 831, 833). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 631, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornhill-v-selsky-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack