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: Dana GIBSON, Appellant, v. Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.), entered December 4, 2007 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with creating a disturbance, assaulting staff and refusing a direct order. Following a tier III hearing, he was found guilty of all charges. On administrative appeal, the determination was upheld, although the penalty was modified. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. Initially, as petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer relied on evidence outside the record for the determination of guilt was not timely raised on administrative appeal, the issue is not properly before us (see Matter of Constantino v. Goord, 33 A.D.3d 1093, 1094, 822 N.Y.S.2d 645 [2006]; Matter of Cayenne v. Goord, 16 A.D.3d 782, 783, 790 N.Y.S.2d 762 [2005] ). Furthermore, petitioner's contention that the determination of guilt was not supported by the requisite substantial evidence is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on this appeal (see Matter of Williams v. Goord, 47 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 849 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2008] ). In any event, the detailed misbehavior report, related documentary evidence and the hearing testimony support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Green v. Goord, 26 A.D.3d 562, 563, 807 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2006] ). Finally, contrary to petitioner's contention, he was properly excluded from the hearing during a mental health professional's confidential health assessment testimony (see 7 NYCRR 254.6[c][3]; Matter of Lamage v. Selsky, 47 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 850 N.Y.S.2d 684 [2008] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
PETERS, J.
CARDONA, P.J., CARPINELLO, KAVANAGH and STEIN, 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: November 13, 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)