Matter of Jenkins v Selsky
2008 NY Slip Op 04419 [51 AD3d 1239]
May 15, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008


In the Matter of Taiwu Jenkins, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, asDirector of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs,Respondent.

[*1]Taiwu Jenkins, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of the Commissioner ofCorrectional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, it was determined that petitioner had slashed anotherinmate on the face and, consequently, he was found guilty of assault and engaging in violentconduct. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78proceeding seeking annulment ensued.

We confirm. The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence including themisbehavior report and related documentation, together with the confidential testimonyconsidered by the Hearing Officer in camera (see Matter of Reddick v Goord, 43 AD3d 503, 503 [2007]).Petitioner's denial of the allegations created a credibility issue for resolution by the HearingOfficer (see Matter of Adorno vGoord, 35 AD3d 930, 931 [2006]). Regarding petitioner's assertion that the HearingOfficer was biased, it is neither substantiated in the record nor is there any indication that thedetermination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Kirby v Leclaire, 47 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2008]). Asfor petitioner's allegation that he was denied [*2]adequateemployee assistance, any defects were cured by the Hearing Officer during the hearing (see Matter of Moretti v Selsky, 46AD3d 1049, 1050 [2007]). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions, includinghis claims that the misbehavior report was deficient and the Hearing Officer failed toindependently assess the reliability of the confidential informant, and find them to be withoutmerit.

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.