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: Dabney HALL, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.
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.
A frisk of petitioner found him to be in possession of 26 packets of a substance which tested to be heroin. As a consequence, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug possession and smuggling. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, after which petitioner was found guilty of both charges. Upon administrative appeal, that determination was affirmed with a modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, along with the positive drug test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cooper v. Selsky, 43 A.D.3d 1254, 1255, 842 N.Y.S.2d 111 [2007], appeal dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 1026, 852 N.Y.S.2d 10, 881 N.E.2d 1196 [2008] ). Petitioner's denial that he had any drugs on him created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Jones v. Goord, 50 A.D.3d 1427, 856 N.Y.S.2d 700 [2008] ). We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims that the chain of custody was defective, he was denied the right to present witness testimony and the hearing was untimely, and find no reason to disturb the 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: June 19, 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)