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: Eric THOMAS, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing Unit, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging an administrative determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit inmates from assaulting an inmate and making threats. Although petitioner raised a substantial evidence question in his verified petition warranting transfer to this court, he has since abandoned that argument and now contends that the Hearing Officer who presided over his hearing was biased. Examining this argument in the interest of judicial economy (see, Matter of Vasquez v. Coombe, 225 A.D.2d 925, 926, 639 N.Y.S.2d 517 n.), we find that it is without merit. Our review of the record reveals nothing to substantiate petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer threatened him while presiding over an earlier disciplinary hearing. Moreover, it was not improper for the Hearing Officer to admonish petitioner for repeatedly interrupting his questions (see, Matter of Odom v. Goord, 238 A.D.2d 816, 817-818, 656 N.Y.S.2d 524) or to permit an off-the-record discussion between a witness and another correction officer regarding matters unrelated to the substance of the witness's testimony (see, Matter of Collazo v. Coombe, 235 A.D.2d 654, 655, 653 N.Y.S.2d 145). In sum, we do not find “that the Hearing Officer ‘was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from such bias' ” (Matter of Hunt v. Goord, 252 A.D.2d 982, 677 N.Y.S.2d 649, 650, quoting Matter of Parker v. Coughlin, 211 A.D.2d 929, 621 N.Y.S.2d 954). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: December 03, 1998
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)