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: Samuel McNEAR, 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.
A correction officer observed petitioner approach another inmate and exchange punches with him. Petitioner disregarded several direct orders from the correction officer to stop fighting, even when the other inmate attempted to comply with the orders. As a result of the incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting and refusing a direct order. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner requested no witnesses and offered no defense. Petitioner was found guilty of both charges and, as modified on administrative appeal, a penalty of, among other things, six months confinement and loss of good time was imposed.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report written by the correction officer who witnessed the incident is sufficient, by itself, to constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477 [1990]; Matter of Encarnacion v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 906, 797 N.Y.S.2d 178 [2005] ). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions, including his challenge to the penalty imposed and tier classification of the charges, and find them to be without merit.
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 26, 2006
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)