| Matter of Haden v Selsky |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09516 [57 AD3d 1056] |
| December 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Robert Haden, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Directorof Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent. |
—[*1] 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 Supreme Court,entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Serviceswhich found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
A prison mail clerk opened an envelope addressed to petitioner and discovered a $30 moneyorder as well as a note from another inmate's relative indicating that the money order was from thatinmate. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating facilitycorrespondence procedures and engaging in an unauthorized exchange. He was found guilty of thesecharges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed onadministrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the mail clerk was not required to obtain a mail watchauthorization prior to opening the envelope at issue under the circumstances presented here. Under thepertinent regulations, the clerk was permitted to open petitioner's general mail containing the moneyorder (see 7 NYCRR 720.4 [a] [2]). Upon recognizing the handwriting of another inmate'srelative, the clerk was further authorized to read the note accompanying the money order (see7 NYCRR 720.4 [e] [1]; see e.g. Matter ofCurro v Goord, 31 AD3d 825, 826 [2006]). Notably, the misbehavior report, documentaryevidence and hearing [*2]testimony, together with the reasonableinferences to be drawn therefrom, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Humphrey v Goord, 42 AD3d845 [2007]). Furthermore, we find no merit to petitioner's claim that he was improperly denied theright to have certain witnesses testify at the hearing given that their testimony would not have beenrelevant to the charges against him (seeMatter of Williams v Goord, 27 AD3d 808, 809 [2006]). Similarly, we reject petitioner'sclaim of Hearing Officer bias inasmuch as the record does not reveal any evidence of such bias or thatthe determination at issue flowed therefrom (see Matter of Sweet v Poole, 48 AD3d 867, 868 [2008]). We haveconsidered petitioner's remaining assertions that he was denied adequate employee assistance as wellas important documentary evidence and find them to be unavailing.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.