Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Camilo INFANTE, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
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, an inmate, was ordered by a correction officer to produce a urine sample as part of a random drug screening. When petitioner failed to provide a specimen within the required three-hour period (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4[d][4] ), he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order and failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of petitioner's examining physician and the documentary evidence submitted at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Wigfall v. Goord, 16 A.D.3d 791, 791, 790 N.Y.S.2d 768 [2005]; Matter of Lopez v. Goord, 14 A.D.3d 771, 771, 786 N.Y.S.2d 852 [2005]; Matter of Becker v. Goord, 13 A.D.3d 947, 948, 787 N.Y.S.2d 441 [2004] ). Although petitioner asserts that he was unable to provide the urine sample because of a prior groin injury which was compounded by shy bladder syndrome, his examining physician testified that petitioner's condition would not have prevented his compliance within the allotted three-hour time period (see Matter of Zhong v. Selsky, 307 A.D.2d 498, 499, 763 N.Y.S.2d 350 [2003] ). Petitioner's alleged inability to produce the urine sample raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Cunningham v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 814, 814, 711 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2000] ) and, as the resulting determination was supported by substantial evidence, we decline to disturb it.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: August 04, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)