From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Cooper v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94562.

Decided and Entered: May 13, 2004.

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.

Bernard Cooper, Marcy, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the destruction of state property after three holes were discovered in the security screen of his cell. Significantly, upon moving into the cell 2½ weeks earlier, petitioner had signed a cell inspection form indicating that there was no damage to his cell. This inspection form, the misbehavior report and photograph of the damaged screen, together with the inferences to be drawn therefrom, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Marcus v. Goord, 287 A.D.2d 906, 907). Testimony from petitioner and his cellmate that the holes in the screen were present before petitioner had moved into the cell presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Baptiste v. Goord, 302 A.D.2d 820; Matter of Cruz v. Selsky, 288 A.D.2d 517, 518). Next, even if preserved for our review (see Matter of Walker v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 742), we would be unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that the misbehavior report was defective because it failed to specify petitioner's role in the incident. Although petitioner was not observed damaging the screen, the factual basis leading to the disciplinary charge provides petitioner with sufficient information to enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Couch v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 720, 721). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Cooper v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Cooper v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF BERNARD COOPER, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Director…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 13, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
776 N.Y.S.2d 638

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Lopez v. McGinnis

Petitioner challenges a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison…

Duchnowski v. Annucci

We confirm. Petitioner is precluded from challenging the determination finding him guilty of the charges to…