From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dabney v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 2000
276 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

October 26, 2000.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Bartram Yihni Dabney, Pine City, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Gina M. Ciccone of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner was found guilty of violating various prison disciplinary rules in connection with his assault on a correction officer. The misbehavior reports related that on August 30, 1999 petitioner stabbed a correction officer in the hand with a pen while the officer was attempting to deliver supplies through petitioner's "feed up" hatch. Other officers were then called to the scene in order to restrain petitioner who refused direct orders while yelling and making threats against the officers.

Petitioner challenges the determination on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence. While petitioner does not deny that he committed the offenses which gave rise to the disciplinary proceeding, he contends that the determination cannot be sustained because he was suffering from mental illness at the time of the incident and was unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions. We find this argument unpersuasive. Our review of the record indicates that the Hearing Officer properly considered petitioner's mental condition at the time of the incident and gave petitioner a full and complete opportunity to develop this defense (see, Matter of Huggins v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 904, 905). We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner was responsible for his actions (see,Matter of Colantonio v. Coughlin, 194 A.D.2d 1015).

We have considered petitioner's remaining claims and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

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


Summaries of

Dabney v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 2000
276 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Dabney v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BARTRAM YIHNI DABNEY, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, as…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 460

Citing Cases

Matter of Mawhinney v. Goord

Further, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's argument that he should not have been found guilty of the charges…