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: Michael S. HALE, 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.
Petitioner engaged in a verbal altercation with a correction sergeant while in the law library and disregarded his directives to step out into the hallway and be quiet. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, creating a disturbance and harassing an employee. He was found guilty of the charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who authored it as well the sergeant and another officer present at the scene, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Abdullah v. Goord, 36 A.D.3d 978, 979, 826 N.Y.S.2d 505 [2007] ). The contrary testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Vigliotti v. Bell, 52 A.D.3d 1064, 860 N.Y.S.2d 288 [2008]; Matter of Rodriguez v. Selsky, 47 A.D.3d 1173, 1173, 849 N.Y.S.2d 734 [2008] ). We have examined petitioner's claims that he was improperly denied the right to present witnesses and certain documentary evidence and find them to be lacking in merit. Therefore, we decline to disturb the determination at issue.
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: December 11, 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)