Williams v. Selsky

282 A.D.2d 849, 725 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3674
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 849 (Williams 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
Williams v. Selsky, 282 A.D.2d 849, 725 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

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 found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting escape and leaving an assigned area without authorization. Initially, the record reveals that petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of leaving an assigned area without authorization and, therefore, is precluded from asserting that the determination as to such charge is not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Grof v Goord, 278 AD2d 650). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony offered at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt with respect to the escape charge (see, Matter of Rosario v [850]*850Goord, 265 AD2d 714, appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 822). Petitioner’s assertion that he cannot be found guilty of such charge because he absconded from his work site and not the correctional facility is rejected. The relevant rule provides that “[ijnmates shall not escape, attempt to escape, conspire to, or be an accessory to an escape from any correctional facility or correctional custody” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [9] [i] [emphasis supplied]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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

White v. Goord
20 A.D.3d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Towles v. Selsky
12 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Dagnone v. Goord
297 A.D.2d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D.2d 849, 725 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2001.