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: Anthony BARBER, 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 refusing a direct order, interference with an employee, making threats and harassment. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of interference with an employee's performance of duties and harassment and not guilty of refusing a direct order and making threats. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt.
The misbehavior report stemmed from petitioner's belligerent behavior toward a correction officer who was attempting to counsel petitioner regarding his inappropriate behavior-namely, communicating with a female civilian while on community service detail. Petitioner, denying that he had any contact with the civilian, engaged in a heated argument with the correction officer, repeatedly waived his finger in the correction officer's face and refused to listen to him. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and corroborating eyewitness testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Ferrar v. Selsky, 1 A.D.3d 671, 766 N.Y.S.2d 618 [2003]; Matter of McCoy v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 525, 715 N.Y.S.2d 503 [2000] ). Whether petitioner actually communicated with the civilian is irrelevant to the instant charges, which arose not from any alleged unauthorized communication but, rather, from his insolent behavior and confrontation with the correction officer. Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims of double jeopardy, have been reviewed and found to be without 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: April 28, 2005
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)