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: Kenneth SPULKA, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing Unit for the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing controlled substances after a frisk of petitioner revealed a packet of heroin. The determination of guilt was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Initially, upon reviewing the record, we find that the misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who prepared the report, the positive test results and the testimony of the correction officer who performed the testing constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Maldonado v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 742, 704 N.Y.S.2d 383). Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the testing of the substance was performed in accordance with applicable procedures (see, Matter of Moley v. Selsky, 245 A.D.2d 588, 589, 664 N.Y.S.2d 843).
Petitioner's claim that the misbehavior report is defective because it does not contain the signatures of a correction officer who witnessed the frisk or the correction officer who tested the substance is unavailing. We note that both officers testified at the hearing and petitioner failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as the result of this technical error (see, id., at 589, 664 N.Y.S.2d 843; Matter of Serra v. Selsky, 223 A.D.2d 845, 845, 636 N.Y.S.2d 462). In addition, contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not improperly denied the right to call witnesses to identify the individual who provided the information which prompted the frisk since such evidence was not considered in determining petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Davis v. Selsky, 270 A.D.2d 548, 704 N.Y.S.2d 677; Matter of Moore v. Rabideau, 250 A.D.2d 1008, 1009, 673 N.Y.S.2d 256). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent they have been preserved for our review, and find them to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: November 02, 2000
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)