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: Bernard COOPER, Appellant, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered October 27, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
While incarcerated at Southport Correctional Facility in Chemung County, petitioner sent a letter to his wife requesting her to send $30 to another inmate housed at the correctional facility. The letter was opened by a correction official and petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling, soliciting and violating facility correspondence procedures. He was found guilty of all charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination on procedural grounds. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
Petitioner contends that the determination must be annulled because correction officials did not obtain the authorization of the superintendent of the facility to open his mail as required by Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4422 (see 7 NYCRR 720.3[e] ). The evidence, however, demonstrates otherwise. The correction official who opened petitioner's mail testified that she had authorization from the superintendent, and the confidential information further established that the superintendent gave written authorization. As petitioner raises no question of substantial evidence and his other contentions either have not been preserved or are lacking in merit, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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: November 30, 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)