From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russell v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 15, 2003
305 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

92824

Decided and Entered: May 15, 2003.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

David Russell, Malone, petitioner pro se.

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

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit violent conduct, assault on staff and disobeying a direct order. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that he received inadequate employee assistance and was provided with falsified records. Inasmuch as petitioner failed to challenge at the hearing or upon administrative appeal the adequacy of the assistance and documents provided, this contention has not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Wells v. Selsky, 282 A.D.2d 799). Nevertheless, were we to consider the contention, we would find it to be without merit. Petitioner indicated at the hearing that he was satisfied with the documents he received from the assistant and questioned only the redaction of information therefrom, which the Hearing Officer explained to petitioner's satisfaction. Furthermore, petitioner's assertion that the assistant falsified documents is unsupported by the record. In any event, petitioner fails to establish that any alleged inadequacies pertaining to the assistant or his request for documents prejudiced petitioner or his defense (see Matter of West v. Costello, 270 A.D.2d 673).

Although the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court since petitioner raised an issue of substantial evidence, petitioner has not raised a substantial evidence issue in his brief and we deem the issue abandoned (see Matter of Wade v. Portuondo, 289 A.D.2d 663, 663 n [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Russell v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 15, 2003
305 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Russell v. Selsky

Case Details

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

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

Date published: May 15, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 560

Citing Cases

Tafari v. Selsky

As far as his contention that his assistant failed to interview inmate witnesses present in the visiting…

In the Matter of Polanco v. Bennett

This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Although the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court…