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: Thomas JONES, 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following an investigation, it was revealed that petitioner had requested his fiancée to bring marihuana into the correctional facility where he was incarcerated. After she arrived at the facility, she gave a written statement indicating that petitioner had made this request during a telephone conversation, but that she did not comply. She consented to a strip search as well as a search of her vehicle and no marihuana was found. Petitioner was subsequently charged in a misbehavior report with conspiracy to possess contraband and soliciting another to smuggle contraband into the facility. He was found guilty of these charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed with a reduced penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report, the testimony of the investigator who prepared it, and the written statement of petitioner's fiancée support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Umber v. Murphy, 304 A.D.2d 931, 932, 757 N.Y.S.2d 379 [2003] ). The testimony of petitioner and his fiancée that the written statement was coerced presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Rivera v. Goord, 3 A.D.3d 634, 635, 769 N.Y.S.2d 911 [2004] ). Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the administrative determination.
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: January 10, 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)