Odom v. Selsky, 58 A.D.3d 1060 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Odom v. Selsky, 58 A.D.3d 1060 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Gaston v. Annucci (nyappdiv, 2017-03-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gaston v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s testimony that the misbehavior reports were written in retaliation for prior complaints that he had filed presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officers to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1582, 1583 [2012]; Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gaston v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s testimony that the misbehavior reports were written in retaliation for prior complaints that he had filed presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officers to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1582, 1583 [2012]; Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garraway v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Following Supreme Court’s dismissal of petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding, this appeal ensued. * Initially, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the letter containing the threatening language and petitioner’s admission that he wrote the letter, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]; Matter of Sloane v McKinney, 48 AD3d 850, 850 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony of the correction officer who authored it, the testimony of the correction officers present at the scene and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera (see Matter of Gonzalez v Prack, 62 AD3d 1220,1220 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Justice v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Moreover, petitioner has not shown that the failure to obtain the report prejudiced his ability to raise a defense (see Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McFadden v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioner claims that the misbehavior report was given to him in retaliation for an earlier grievance he had filed against the author of the report, we find this created a credibility issue to be resolved by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]; Matter of Zaire v Artus, 49 AD3d 945, 946 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lynch v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, testimony adduced at the hearing and confidential information, including a letter written by petitioner that acknowledges a physical threat to the other inmate, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) King v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioner contends that the misbehavior reports were written in retaliation for his utilization of the grievance process, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Odom v Selsky, 58 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]; Matter of Belot v Selsky, 56 AD3d 911 , 912 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jonathan Odom
v.
Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 22, 2009.
58 A.D.3d 1060
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

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

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in two separate misbehavior reports with violating various prison disciplinary rules. Following respective tier III disciplinary hearings, petitioner was found guilty on October 15, 2007 of threatening the staff and on October 19, 2007 of refusing a direct order and losing state property. After exhausting his administrative remedies, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of both determinations. We now confirm.

The October 15, 2007 determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the form of the relevant misbehavior[*1061] report, the letter containing the threatening language and petitioner’s admission that he wrote the letter (see Matter of Sloane v McKinney, 48 AD3d 850, 850 [2008]). We also reject petitioner’s assertion that this misbehavior report was not sufficiently detailed. We note that, although he was not provided with a copy of the alleged threatening letter (which was incorporated by reference in the misbehavior report) until the hearing, he failed to show that he was prejudiced in his ability to mount a defense (see Matter of Faison v Senkowski, 255 AD2d 625, 626 [1998], appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 847 [1999]; Matter of Di Rose v Coornbe, 233 AD2d 799, 800 [1996]).

Likewise, the October 19, 2007 determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the pertinent misbehavior report and the testimony adduced at the hearing, including the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera (see Matter of Nova v Selsky, 54 AD3d 453, 454 [2008]). Petitioner’s assertion that this misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for his filing of grievances created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Zaire v Artus, 49 AD3d 945, 946 [2008]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and, to the extent preserved, are lacking in merit.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.