Newsome v. Selsky
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Wigfall v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Vargas v. Bezio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Davila v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Rivera v. Joy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Britt v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Tafari v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was interviewed by a correction sergeant about a harassment complaint that had been made against him by a civilian librarian. During the interview, he became irritated, bolted from his chair, clenched his fists at the sergeant, used profane language and called him a liar. Petitioner was then pat
We confirm. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who placed petitioner in restraints following the outburst, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Barber v Selsky, 17 AD3d 950, 951 [2005]; Matter of Jamison v Goord, 8 AD3d 860, 860 [2004]). Petitioner’s contention that the hearing officer was biased is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not raise it in his administrative appeal (see Matter of Cameron v Goord, 10 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]). His claim that he was improperly denied the right to call a witness is similarly unpreserved due to his failure to object at the hearing (see Matter of Toledo v Selsky, 12 AD3d 824, 825 [2004]).
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.