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: Israel MERCADO, 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 a prison disciplinary rule.
A search of petitioner's prison cell recovered materials containing references to a particular gang. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing unauthorized organization material. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty as charged. That determination was affirmed upon administrative review, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, confiscated materials and hearing testimony from a correction officer with specialized training in unauthorized organizations comprise substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Jenkins v. Goord, 30 A.D.3d 719, 720, 815 N.Y.S.2d 491 [2006] ). Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the restriction of his possession of materials related to the gang does not violate his 1st Amendment rights “inasmuch as it is reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of maintaining prison security” (Matter of Buford v. Goord, 258 A.D.2d 761, 762, 686 N.Y.S.2d 121 [1999]; see Matter of Lucas v. Scully, 71 N.Y.2d 399, 405, 526 N.Y.S.2d 927, 521 N.E.2d 1070 [1988]; Matter of Tenace v. Goord, 278 A.D.2d 549, 550, 717 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 707, 725 N.Y.S.2d 637, 749 N.E.2d 206 [2001] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim that facility personnel should have screened his mail and intercepted the materials before they were delivered to him, have been considered and are 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 31, 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)