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: William O'DONNELL, Petitioner, v. Daniel A. SENKOWSKI, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier III hearing, petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, was found guilty of interfering with an employee, refusing a search or frisk and obstructing cell visibility (petitioner pleaded guilty to this charge), and was found not guilty of refusing a direct order. Upon administrative appeal, the determinations of guilt were affirmed. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, subsequently transferred to this court, challenging the determination on several grounds.
Upon reviewing the record we find that the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officer who authored it and petitioner's testimony which essentially reflected the correction officer's version, provided substantial evidence supporting the determination (see, Matter of Smith v. Senkowski, 245 A.D.2d 909, 666 N.Y.S.2d 808; Matter of Hayes v. Coombe, 236 A.D.2d 664, 653 N.Y.S.2d 874).
We have not considered a number of procedural arguments petitioner has advanced in this proceeding as they were not raised at the administrative hearing (see, Matter of Clavijo v. Coombe, 236 A.D.2d 692, 653 N.Y.S.2d 724). While there are exceptions to the preservation rule, they are not present here nor are petitioner's arguments of sufficient magnitude for us to annul the determination in the interest of justice (see, Matter of Woodin v. Lane, 119 A.D.2d 969, 501 N.Y.S.2d 495).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
WHITE, Justice.
MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.
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: June 04, 1998
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)