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: Todd CHANEY, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of 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.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating several prison disciplinary rules after a law library clerk retrieved a book from his cell. The book contained a manilla folder of legal work belonging to another inmate, along with an unsigned cover letter to that inmate describing the accompanying documents. After a hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of two charges but found guilty of providing unauthorized legal assistance. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding.
The misbehavior report, documents found in the manilla folder and the testimony of both the correction officer who discovered the documents and the library clerk provide substantial evidence to support the charge (see Matter of Hynes v. Goord, 30 A.D.3d 652, 653, 817 N.Y.S.2d 168 [2006] ). Conflicts in the testimony presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Chaney v. Selsky, 35 A.D.3d 1109, 1110, 828 N.Y.S.2d 604 [2006] ).
Regarding petitioner's timeliness challenges, the two-week delay in writing the misbehavior report was explained by the author's testimony that he needed to investigate to ensure that this conduct was not included in previous charges against petitioner for providing unauthorized legal assistance (see Matter of Reed v. Goord, 16 A.D.3d 796, 796, 790 N.Y.S.2d 770 [2005] ). Although the hearing was not completed within 14 days, we recently stated in a related matter that “the regulatory time limits are directory, not mandatory; further, there is no evidence of any prejudice as a result of the delay” (Matter of Chaney v. Selsky, supra at 1110, 828 N.Y.S.2d 604; see Matter of Chaney v. Goord, 26 A.D.3d 605, 606-607, 809 N.Y.S.2d 631 [2006] ). In any event, extensions of time were obtained to complete the hearing (see 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: February 22, 2007
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)