From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sanchez v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 4, 1996
226 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 4, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Washington County.


Petitioner is an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County. After an incident in which petitioner took an inmate barber as a hostage, refused an order to exit a shower area and used a metal rod to assault a correction officer, petitioner was found guilty of violating numerous prison disciplinary rules. He challenges this determination arguing, inter alia, that the Hearing Officer failed to consider his mental state or advise him of potential sanctions. Initially, we find that inasmuch as petitioner did not raise these claims at the administrative hearing, he has failed to preserve them for review. We further find that the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officers who witnessed the incident as well as the videotape, provide substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. We have considered petitioner's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Sanchez v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 4, 1996
226 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of Sanchez v. Selsky

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Apr 4, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 305

Citing Cases

Spirles v. Goord

Petitioner also contends that the Hearing Officer erred by failing to consider his history of mental illness…

Matter of Odom v. Goord

After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging…