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: Keith MURRAY, 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, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty as charged. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.
We confirm. The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report, related documentation and hearing testimony from the correction officer who authored the report and the inmate who petitioner threatened (see Matter of Williams v. Selsky, 50 A.D.3d 1426, 1426-1427, 856 N.Y.S.2d 698 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 703, 864 N.Y.S.2d 391, 894 N.E.2d 655 [2008] ). As for petitioner's denial of the allegations against him, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Jordan v. Fischer, 53 A.D.3d 1013, 1013, 860 N.Y.S.2d 922 [2008] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims that he was improperly confined to the special housing unit, that he was denied adequate employee assistance and that the Hearing Officer was biased, have been examined and, to the extent preserved, are unavailing.
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 15, 2009
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)