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: Harold LYDE, Petitioner, v. Daniel 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 respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty after a tier III disciplinary hearing of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from assaulting staff, refusing a direct order and engaging in violent conduct. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner refused an order to “lock-in”, bumped a correction officer in the chest and raised his arm in an aggressive manner. On administrative appeal his guilt was affirmed and we confirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the detailed misbehavior report, combined with the testimony produced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477). Although petitioner denied any wrongdoing, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v. Portuondo, 247 A.D.2d 810, 811, 669 N.Y.S.2d 403). Finally, we note that petitioner's claim of Hearing Officer bias is unpreserved due to his failure to object at the hearing. In any event, were this contention properly before us, we would find it to be lacking in merit.
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: June 24, 1999
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)