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: William McKETHAN, 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.
Having attempted to engage in a physical altercation with another inmate, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with, among other things, creating a disturbance and engaging in violent conduct. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, during which extensive testimony was given by petitioner, three other inmates and two correction officers. At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the two charges. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. Initially, although the hearing transcript contains some inaudible portions, they are not so significant as to preclude meaningful review (see Matter of Lewis v. Goord, 43 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 842 N.Y.S.2d 105 [2007] ). Turning to the merits, the detailed misbehavior report and the testimony adduced at the hearing comprise substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Tafari v. Selsky, 45 A.D.3d 1139, 1139, 844 N.Y.S.2d 913 [2007] ). Finally, as for petitioner's conclusory claim that he was improperly denied the right to present photographic evidence, the Hearing Officer property found it irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of Santana v. Senkowski, 269 A.D.2d 638, 703 N.Y.S.2d 814 [2000] ).
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: March 27, 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)