Francella v. SelskyFrancella v. Selsky
—Prоceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entеred in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which directed that petitiоner be placed in administrative segregation.
On March 16, 1995, a confidential informant approached Correction Sergeant Anthony Pavone to advise him that petitionеr was going to receive some serious contraband through the mail. Pavone contаcted another correction officer who told Pavone that he was investigating an anonymous letter stating that petitioner was attempting to get other inmates to helр him "hit” another inmate. Later on March 16, a package addressed to petitioner was opened and inspected, revealing three hacksaw blades and 12 .22-caliber bullets hidden in pastry. Prison officials then issued an order of administrative segregation. A lengthy heаring was held between March 24 and 31, 1995 that resulted in a determination assigning petitioner to administrative segregation for an indefinite period. This determination is the subject of this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
An inmate may be placed in administrative segregation when it is determined that his or her presence in the general population would pose a threat to the safety and security of the facility (7 NYCRR 301.4 [b]). In making this assessment, prison authorities may draw on more than the specific facts of a particular incident; they may consider the character of the inmates confined in the institution, as well as the longstanding relations betweеn the inmate and guards and other inmates (see, Hewitt v Helms,
Here, while petitioner contends that he should not be penalized for being the intended recipient of prison contraband, an event оver which he had no control, evidence adduced at petitioner’s administrative hеaring showed that the arrival of the packages in question was symptomatic of the threat to security posed by petitioner’s continued presence in the general inmate population. Hearing testimony disclosed that petitioner has a reputatiоn in the correctional system as a powerful figure with many inmate allies and enemies; рetitioner having
While petitioner may not be directly responsible for the arrival of the contraband at the facility, his machinations during his incarceration are at least indirectly responsible for its presenсe at the facility. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision assigning petitioner to administrative segregation on the ground that he poses a threаt to the facility’s safety and security (see, Matter of Perez v Selsky,
Petitioner’s remaining contentions are easily disposed of. His argument that the hearing was not timely is meritless since 7 NYCRR 301.4 (a) merely requires that the hearing be conducted within 14 days of an inmate’s admission to administrative segregation, not that it commence within seven days as petitioner maintains. We need not consider the argument thаt the Hearing Officer failed to make an independent assessment of the confidential informant’s reliability since the record evidence, without consideration of the cоnfidential information, is legally sufficient to support the determination (see, Matter of Fletcher v Selsky,
Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.