From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of London v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 5, 1998
247 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 5, 1998


Petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules that prohibit the unauthorized exchange of personal property and the altering of State clothing. Petitioner also was assessed $19.66 for the cost of replacing the altered clothing. The charges stemmed from a cell search that uncovered a book belonging to another inmate and two pairs of State pants with the belt loops altered.

Initially, we reject petitioner's contention that the determination should be annulled because the misbehavior report did not comply with 7 NYCRR 251-3.1. In our view, the misbehavior report was sufficient to inform petitioner of the charges against him and enable him to prepare a defense (see, e.g., Matter of Carini v. Mann, 237 A.D.2d 761, 762). Furthermore, we find no error in the Hearing Officer's denial of petitioner's request to call the State shop civilian inasmuch as her testimony regarding petitioner's request to exchange the pants would have been irrelevant to the charge of altering State clothing (see generally, Matter of Gill v. Selsky, 240 A.D.2d 831). Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Matter of London v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 5, 1998
247 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of London v. Selsky

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 506

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Kalwasinski v. Goord

Petitioner's claim that the exchange was authorized because the papers were delivered to him by a correction…