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: Larry SIETESKI, Petitioner, v. Lieutenant DIBIASE, as Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County, was found guilty of possessing contraband after a search of his cell divulged six maps. The misbehavior report together with petitioner's admission that he possessed the maps provide substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477). Although petitioner contends that he was permitted to possess the maps at a different correctional facility, the record fails to establish that his possession thereof was authorized by the Superintendent at Great Meadow (see, Matter of Jenkins v. Senkowski, 221 A.D.2d 779, 634 N.Y.S.2d 224; Matter of Gittens v. Coughlin, 184 A.D.2d 812, 813, 584 N.Y.S.2d 670). As such, the maps were properly characterized as contraband (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2[B][14][xiv] ). Petitioner's contention that he was unaware that the possession of the maps was prohibited is equally without merit (see, Matter of Jenkins v. Senkowski, supra).
We find petitioner's contention that the determination should be annulled due to various procedural errors to be unpersuasive. There is no evidence to support petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer conducted an off-the-record discussion with the facility's Superintendent. In any event, even if the conversation took place, petitioner failed to show that any prejudice resulted therefrom (see generally, Matter of Beckford v Coombe, 233 A.D.2d 734, 650 N.Y.S.2d 339). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MIKOLL, Justice Presiding.
CREW, WHITE, CASEY and SPAIN, 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: September 04, 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)