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: Patrick McGRUE, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing Unit, 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 St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent Director of Special Housing Unit, Department of Correctional Services, which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty, after a hearing, of assaulting another inmate. He challenges this determination arguing, inter alia, that it is not supported by substantial evidence, that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses, and that the Hearing Officer was biased.
Initially, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and that of another correction officer who was involved in investigating the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination. Both officers stated that the victim of the assault identified petitioner as one of his assailants. Although petitioner claimed that he was playing basketball and was not involved in the incident, his testimony merely presented a question of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Young v. Coombe, 227 A.D.2d 799, 801, 642 N.Y.S.2d 443, 444; Matter of Ayala v. Coombe, 227 A.D.2d 752, 753, 642 N.Y.S.2d 98, 99).
We also reject petitioner's claim that he was denied the right to have certain witnesses testify at the hearing. While petitioner argues that he was denied the right to elicit the victim's testimony, the record discloses that petitioner never formally requested the victim as a witness, and that those witnesses he did request, who were available to testify, were indeed called and examined at the hearing. Moreover, the hearing transcript reveals that the Hearing Officer conducted the proceeding in a fair and impartial manner (see, Matter of Ruffin v. Coombe, 233 A.D.2d 729, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1012; Matter of McCoy v. Leonardo, 175 A.D.2d 358, 359, 572 N.Y.S.2d 436). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
YESAWICH, Justice.
CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, WHITE and PETERS, JJ., concur.
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: February 06, 1997
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)