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: Taiwu JENKINS, 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 Chemung County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, it was determined that petitioner had slashed another inmate on the face and, consequently, he was found guilty of assault and engaging in violent conduct. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment ensued.
We confirm. The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence including the misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera (see Matter of Reddick v. Goord, 43 A.D.3d 503, 503, 840 N.Y.S.2d 234 [2007] ). Petitioner's denial of the allegations created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Adorno v. Goord, 35 A.D.3d 930, 931, 825 N.Y.S.2d 573 [2006] ). Regarding petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased, it is neither substantiated in the record nor is there any indication that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Kirby v. Leclaire, 47 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 850 N.Y.S.2d 300 [2008] ). As for petitioner's allegation that he was denied adequate employee assistance, any defects were cured by the Hearing Officer during the hearing (see Matter of Moretti v. Selsky, 46 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 846 N.Y.S.2d 822 [2007] ). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims that the misbehavior report was deficient and the Hearing Officer failed to independently assess the reliability of the confidential informant, and find them to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 15, 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)