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: Jorge LEBRON, 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 a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating facility correspondence regulations. We now confirm.
The misbehavior report and confiscated mail, which demonstrate that petitioner's wife sent a letter and photograph on his behalf to an inmate at another facility, comprise substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Belot v. Selsky, 47 A.D.3d 1149, 1149, 850 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2008] ). To the extent that petitioner asserted that his wife sent the mail without his direction, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Vigliotti v. Selsky, 45 A.D.3d 946, 946-947, 844 N.Y.S.2d 502 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 702, 853 N.Y.S.2d 543, 883 N.E.2d 370 [2008] ). Regarding petitioner's claim that the misbehavior report was deficient, although it did reference the incorrect subsections of the facility directive in question, it was sufficient as a whole to apprise petitioner of the charge against him and afford him the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Ross v. Selsky, 49 A.D.3d 1065, 1065, 854 N.Y.S.2d 565 [2008] ).
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)