From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Brisman v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 28, 2000
278 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 28, 2000.

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 Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.

Richard Brisman, Dannemora, petitioner in person.

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


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from creating a disturbance, harassment and refusing a direct order. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Sanders v. Goord, 275 A.D.2d 842, 713 N.Y.S.2d 509; Matter of Rashid v. Ketchum, 247 A.D.2d 670). Petitioner's remaining arguments were not raised in his administrative appeal and, thus, are unpreserved for our review (see, Matter of Rivera v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 813; Matter of Mealer v. Selsky, 268 A.D.2d 723). In any event, were these issues properly before us, we would find them to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Matter of Brisman v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 28, 2000
278 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Brisman v. Senkowski

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RICHARD BRISMAN, Petitioner, v. DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, as…

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

Date published: Dec 28, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 654

Citing Cases

Pauljajoute v. Goord

We cannot agree. As a starting point, petitioner did not raise this issue on his administrative appeal and,…

In the Matter of Thomas v. Selsky

Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the rule violation for which petitioner was found guilty specifically…