From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bristow v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 2, 1999
267 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 2, 1999

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Earl Bristow, Pine City, petitioner in person.

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

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, MERCURE, CREW III and YESAWICH JR., JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from possessing weapons based upon proof indicating that a sharpened metal shank was found secreted in the back of petitioner's toilet. This determination was affirmed upon petitioner's administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the misbehavior report, combined with the reporting officer's testimony, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966). Although petitioner denied possessing the weapon, 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). Additionally, we find that the hearing transcript was adequate for meaningful judicial review, and we reject petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to call witnesses who would provide relevant testimony (see, Matter of Nedrick v. Stinson, 263 A.D.2d 651, 652, 693 N.Y.S.2d 680, 681). The remaining arguments raised in petitioner's brief, to the extent that they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, MERCURE, CREW III and YESAWICH JR., JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Matter of Bristow v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 2, 1999
267 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Bristow v. Selsky

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Dec 2, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 560

Citing Cases

Matter of Williams v. Goord

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Following a tier III hearing petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of…

Pica v. Selsky

We disagree. The detailed misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officers…