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: George LUNNEY, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing-Inmate Disciplinary Program, New York State Department of Correctional Services, 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit making threats and also leading, organizing or urging other prison inmates to participate in work stoppages. The misbehavior report alleges that in a February 17, 1998 letter to a prison official, petitioner discussed certain complaints by “Maintenance 18” inmate workers and urged that these issues be addressed so as to “avoid a strike by Maintenance 18 workers and/or a lengthy court battle”. When petitioner was interviewed concerning this letter a few days later, he stated that he had been picked as the spokesperson for the work crew and that he condoned a strike by the Maintenance 18 workers. Petitioner's administrative appeal was unsuccessful, except to the extent that his penalty was reduced, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report combined with the February 17, 1998 letter provides substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's 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 making admissions during the course of the investigation, 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). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim that the Hearing Officer was biased, have been examined and, to the extent that they have been preserved for appellate review, found to be lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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 17, 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)