From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arce v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 13, 2000
268 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 13, 2000

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.

George Arce, Elmira, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting the possession of unauthorized medication and property damage. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending that he did not receive adequate inmate assistance and that the Hearing Officer was biased. We disagree.

Supreme Court improperly transferred the proceeding on substantial evidence grounds. Petitioner raises solely procedural issues in the petition (see, Matter of Barnhill v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 719, 720 n. 1). In any event, in the interest of judicial economy, this court will retain the proceeding (see, Matter of Nieves v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 1042, 693 N.Y.S.2d 361).

Petitioner's contention that the hearing was not to begin until 24 hours after his assistance had been completed has been repeatedly rejected by this court (see, Matter of Proctor v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 749; Matter of Neal v. Coombe, 231 A.D.2d 795). The rule states that a hearing is not to begin until 24 hours after petitioner's first meeting with the assistant (see, 7 NYCRR 254.6 [a];Matter of Proctor v. Coombe, supra). In any event, the timing of the hearing did not compromise the level of assistance petitioner received and a review of the record shows that the assistance was adequate. Likewise, the record does not support a finding that petitioner did not receive a fair and impartial hearing or that the Hearing Officer was biased.

MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Arce v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 13, 2000
268 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Arce v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GEORGE ARCE, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Director of…

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

Date published: Jan 13, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
700 N.Y.S.2d 774

Citing Cases

Millan v. Goord

Moreover, we conclude that the misbehavior report, together with the confidential testimony and the evidence…

Matter of Rossi v. Portuondo

Petitioner's claims of procedural violations are also lacking in merit. His interpretation of the 24-hour…