| Matter of Woodward v Selsky |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06597 [43 AD3d 1209] |
| September 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Shawn Woodward, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, asDirector of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered May 10, 2006 in AlbanyCounty, as amended by a judgment entered August 9, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissedpetitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination ofthe Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prisondisciplinary rule.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of possession of aweapon. That determination was affirmed on administrative review, prompting petitioner tocommence this CPLR article 78 proceeding which, in turn, was dismissed by Supreme Court.Petitioner now appeals.
To the extent that petitioner is contending that the underlying determination is not supportedby substantial evidence, such claim has not been preserved for our review inasmuch as it is beingraised for the first time on appeal (seeMatter of Harrison v Selsky, 2 AD3d 1232 [2003]). In any event, the misbehaviorreport, related documentation, photographs and hearing testimony comprise the requisitesubstantial evidence (see Matter of Powell v Goord, 34 AD3d 876, 877 [2006]).
Petitioner's claim that he received inadequate employee assistance also is unavailing. [*2]The record reveals that through the efforts of both the assistant andthe Hearing Officer, petitioner ultimately was provided with all of the documents that herequested (see Matter of Lam Trang v Goord, 283 AD2d 816, 817 [2001]). Moreover,petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the alleged inadequacies (see Matter of Bernier v Goord, 3 AD3d803 [2004]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us,have been examined and found to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed, without costs.