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: Rodney WALTON, Appellant, v. Donald SELSKY, Director of Special Housing of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered September 8, 1997 in Franklin County, which partially granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from possessing controlled substances and smuggling. He thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and, based upon respondents' concession that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the confiscated items were controlled substances, Supreme Court annulled that portion of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing a controlled substance but upheld the finding of guilt on the smuggling charge. Petitioner's contention that respondents' concession also required dismissal of the smuggling charge is unavailing. The applicable regulation prohibits smuggling of “any item” and is not drug-specific (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][15][i]; see, Matter of Shakoor v. Coughlin, 165 A.D.2d 917, 560 N.Y.S.2d 528, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 866, 568 N.Y.S.2d 346, 569 N.E.2d 1025). Finally, petitioner waived his challenge to the penalty of 24 months' loss of visitation privileges by failing to raise the issue on administrative appeal (see, Matter of Lugo v. Jones, 167 A.D.2d 636, 562 N.Y.S.2d 863).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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 11, 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)