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: Bernard COOPER, 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 challenges a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the destruction of state property after three holes were discovered in the security screen of his cell. Significantly, upon moving into the cell 2 1/212 weeks earlier, petitioner had signed a cell inspection form indicating that there was no damage to his cell. This inspection form, the misbehavior report and photograph of the damaged screen, together with the inferences to be drawn therefrom, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Marcus v. Goord, 287 A.D.2d 906, 907, 731 N.Y.S.2d 559 [2001] ). Testimony from petitioner and his cellmate that the holes in the screen were present before petitioner had moved into the cell presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Baptiste v. Goord, 302 A.D.2d 820, 754 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2003]; Matter of Cruz v. Selsky, 288 A.D.2d 517, 518, 732 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2001] ). Next, even if preserved for our review (see Matter of Walker v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 742, 692 N.Y.S.2d 187 [1999] ), we would be unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that the misbehavior report was defective because it failed to specify petitioner's role in the incident. Although petitioner was not observed damaging the screen, the factual basis leading to the disciplinary charge provides petitioner with sufficient information to enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Couch v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 720, 721, 682 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1998] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, 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: May 13, 2004
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)