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: Hector GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing Unit, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit inmates from conspiring or taking any action which is intended to take over any area of the correctional facility and engaging in conduct which disturbs the order of the correctional facility. Evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing included the misbehavior report written by a correction officer who observed petitioner instructing other inmates in Spanish and with hand gestures how to break through and crawl under a fence during a disturbance involving over 300 inmates in the east yard of the facility. Notwithstanding the correction officer's testimony that he does not understand Spanish, the misbehavior report describing petitioner's actions together with the corroborating testimony presented at the hearing provided substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt on both charges (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477; Matter of Calligros v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 246 A.D.2d 700, 666 N.Y.S.2d 520). To the extent that petitioner's testimony conflicted with the misbehavior report and the correction officer's testimony, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v. Portuondo, 247 A.D.2d 810, 811, 669 N.Y.S.2d 403, 404). Claimant's remaining contentions, including the lack of adequate notice of the charges, that he was not permitted to prepare a defense and that the Hearing Officer was biased, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
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: September 10, 1998
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)