Rodriguez v. Selsky
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 charged in a misbehavior report with violating visiting room procedures and failing to obey a direct order. The charges stemmed from an incident wherein petitioner engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a female visitor. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty of the charges and a penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul the underlying determination.
Preliminarily, respondent concedes and our review of the record confirms that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge that petitioner disobeyed a direct order. Accordingly, that portion of the determination is annulled.
We reach a contrary conclusion regarding the charge that petitioner violated visiting room procedures. The misbehavior report and the testimony adduced at the hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner engaged in inappropriate physical contact with his visitor (see Matter of Mealer v Selsky, 290 AD2d 778, 778-779 [2002]). Notably, petitioner was warned regarding that very conduct the day before the incident giving rise to the misbehavior report (see id.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of disobeying a direct order; petition granted to that extent and the Commissioner of Correctional Services is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.
Inasmuch as petitioner has served his administrative penalty and there was no recommended loss of good time, we need not remit this matter for a redetermination of the penalty imposed (see Matter of Wan Zhang v Murphy, 1 AD3d 784 [2003]).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.