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: Alfredo PENA, 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 was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit lewd exposure and harassment. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty as charged and a penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the underlying determination.
The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the authoring correction officer and petitioner's admission that he was unclothed and rubbing lotion on his body at the time of the incident, provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of LaFontant v. Fischer, 51 A.D.3d 1347, 860 N.Y.S.2d 637 [2008]; Matter of Abreu v. Goord, 38 A.D.3d 994, 833 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2007]; Matter of Donato v. Duncan, 272 A.D.2d 768, 768-769, 708 N.Y.S.2d 914 [2000] ). To the extent that petitioner asserts that the testimony offered by the authoring correction officer was inconsistent or that her view of his cube was obstructed and, hence, she could not have seen the offending conduct, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Williams v. Goord, 36 A.D.3d 1033, 826 N.Y.S.2d 522 [2007]; Matter of Smith v. Goord, 275 A.D.2d 827, 828, 713 N.Y.S.2d 297 [2000] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
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: July 24, 2008
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)