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: Jose QUINTANA, 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 was charged in a misbehavior report with violating prison disciplinary rules which proscribe fighting, disorderly conduct, creating a disturbance, possessing a weapon and refusing a direct order. A second misbehavior report charged petitioner with refusing a different direct order. Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges and he commenced this proceeding to review the determination.
There is no merit to petitioner's claim that the misbehavior reports failed to comply with 7 NYCRR 251-3.1. The regulation does not require the itemization in evidentiary detail of all aspects of the case (see, Matter of Rodriguez v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 663, 664, 650 N.Y.S.2d 845). A misbehavior report is sufficient if it contains the date, time and place of the offenses, identifies the disciplinary rules alleged to have been violated and specifies the factual basis for the charges with enough particularity to enable the inmate to prepare a defense (see, Matter of Couch v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 720, 721, 682 N.Y.S.2d 106). Where, as here, petitioner was given sufficient particulars to make an effective response, the notice requirement was satisfied (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 123, 623 N.Y.S.2d 758, 647 N.E.2d 1266). The detailed misbehavior reports and the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report containing multiple charges, together with the other evidence presented at the hearing, provides substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477). The record provides no support for petitioner's claim of Hearing Officer bias (see, Matter of Lawrence v. Headley, 257 A.D.2d 837, 838, 685 N.Y.S.2d 118).
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: January 06, 2000
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)