McCorkle v. Selsky, 264 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
McCorkle v. Selsky, 264 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Dunwoody v. Goord (nyappdiv, 2005-07-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dunwoody v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Furthermore, notwithstanding petitioner’s contention that his due process rights were violated because a response to his administrative appeal was not issued within 15 days pursuant to 7 NYCRR 253.8, he has failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice therefrom requiring annulment of the determination (see Matter of McCorkle v Selsky, 264 AD2d 890, 891 [1999]; Matter of Davis v Bennett, 256 AD2d 791, 791 [1998]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Goberdhan v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Even if he did not, such time period is directory, rather than mandatory, and does not warrant disturbing the determination of guilt absent a showing of substantial prejudice, which has not been made here (see Matter of Ortiz v Goord, 302 AD2d 830, 830-831 [2003]; see also Matter of McCorkle v Selsky, 264 AD2d 890, 891 [1999] ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Cyrus McCorkle
v.
Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 16, 1999.
264 A.D.2d 890
1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9112
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 a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing concerning two misbehavior reports, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of smuggling and possession of weapons in violation of prison disciplinary rules. According to the first misbehavior report, petitioner was observed carrying a pillowcase full of items. The pillowcase was found to contain food that had been taken from the mess hall and a search of petitioner’s person produced a metal shank concealed in his pocket. The second misbehavior report was written after a correction officer found a folded can top fashioned into a weapon hidden in petitioner’s locker. Petitioner’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination of guilt. We confirm.

[*891] In our view, the detailed misbehavior reports, combined with petitioner’s own statements, provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Although petitioner offered exculpatory testimony, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 253 AD2d 940).

We have examined petitioner’s allegations of Hearing Officer bias and find them to be unsubstantiated in the record. In any event, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Di Rose v Coombe, 233 AD2d 799). Similarly, although petitioner maintains that his due process rights were violated because of a delay in providing him with the result of his administrative appeal (see, 7 NYCRR 253.8), we note that any delay did not cause him “substantial prejudice” (Matter of Reynoso v Senkowski, 210 AD2d 709, lv denied 85 NY2d 805) in that petitioner timely commenced this proceeding. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses on his behalf, have been reviewed and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.