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: Mitchell KALWASINSKI, Petitioner, v. D.A. SENKOWSKI, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Substantial evidence supports the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting harassment. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner's disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report authored by a registered nurse employed at a correctional facility where petitioner had previously been incarcerated. She testified that she had received a card, bearing the signature of another inmate, which contained explicit sexual language and a pornographic photograph. The card and photograph were admitted into evidence, as was the testimony of the nurse who stated that the language used in the letter was identical to that previously used by petitioner when speaking and writing to her. She also noted that the handwriting in the letter was the same as that used in petitioner's previous letters to her. We find this sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Richardson v. Coombe, 231 A.D.2d 789, 790, 647 N.Y.S.2d 577). Because of petitioner's refusal to attend his disciplinary hearing, he waived the right to challenge the procedural irregularities alleged by him to have occurred at that hearing (see, Matter of Cowart v. Pico, 213 A.D.2d 853, 855, 623 N.Y.S.2d 948).
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: November 20, 1997
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)