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: Darrell WALKER, Petitioner, v. Daniel SENKOWSKI, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review, inter alia, a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating various prison disciplinary rules, including possessing a weapon, making threats and disobeying a direct order. Based upon the recommendation in the disciplinary determination, the Time Allowance Committee (hereinafter Committee) withheld six months of petitioner's good time credit. Petitioner challenges his detention at the correctional facility as improper, contending that he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Committee and that the disciplinary determination upon which the Committee relied was not supported by substantial evidence.
Initially, we note that because petitioner was conditionally released on February 5, 1999, the challenge to the procedural irregularities in connection with his loss of good time is moot (see generally, Matter of Alstranner v. Selsky, 238 A.D.2d 658, 656 N.Y.S.2d 968; Matter of Santos v. Coughlin, 201 A.D.2d 849, 850, 608 N.Y.S.2d 337). With respect to his challenge to the disciplinary determination, however, although petitioner has been released from custody, this issue cannot be considered moot as “petitioner is entitled to have an institutional record free from improperly obtained findings of disciplinary rule violations” (Matter of Grant v. Senkowski, 146 A.D.2d 948, 949, 537 N.Y.S.2d 323; see, Matter of Crosson v. Coughlin, 197 A.D.2d 864, 865, 604 N.Y.S.2d 878). Nevertheless, the detailed misbehavior report and corroborating testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477).
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: April 15, 1999
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)