While researching prison disciplinary case proceedings I found well over 200 published court decisions in New York dealing with inmate challenges to administrative disciplinary actions in which the courts held: "The Attorney General has advised this Court by letter that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from the petitioner's institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter is dismissed as moot."

Sound like the inmates won? Think again. Catch a Tier 3 misbehavior report and one usually goes straight to the Box for whatever ridiculous length of time the often-vindictive hearing officer decides is the flavor of the day. From there the inmate files his administrative appeal which goes to Donald Selsky at Central Office in Albany. By law Selsky has 60 days from the day he receives the administrative appeal to render his decision on it. He routinely takes the full 60 days allotted to him, and as history shows, he rubber-stamps nearly all of them "AFFIRMED." The inmate then has 4 months within which to file an Article 78 proceeding to further challenge the determination of guilt that landed him in the box. Even under the best of circumstances, it takes at least 5 months from the time an inmate is securely boxed until he can possibly get a court decision, during which time he languishes away either at Southport, Upstate, or in one of the 9 new 200-man SHUs New York's fiscally irresponsible former governor Pataki built for inmates' living pleasure several years ago.

The case gets to court, the Attorney General sees the inmate's claim has legal merit, he makes a phone call to Selsky in Corruptions, says look Donny Boy, we can't have law going on the books that convicts can use against us, so what you need to do is administratively reverse this one so I can get the case dismissed and prevent an unfavorable published opinion from the court. Donny Boy agrees, takes it upon himself to administratively reverse the very same case that came before him several months earlier on administrative appeal, the A.G. notifies the court accordingly, the case gets dismissed and everyone is happy -- except for John Q. Inmate, who served 5 or 6 months in the box for nothing.

Prison disciplinary cases rarely involve complex areas of law. There are few legal arguments relating to these cases that haven't been made already. One would think then that Mr. Selsky, as the Director of the Department's Inmate Disciplinary Program, would be -- or at least should be – familiar enough with the applicable bodies of law to enable him to render a just and legal decision when cases come before him on administrative appeal for the 1st time. And even in those cases where the legal issues presented might fall outside the realm of Mr. Selsky's legal prowess, there is still no excuse not to decide the case within the bounds of the law; he has both in-house legal counsel and the State Attorney General at his ready disposal to answer all legal questions. Yet the cases with legal merit notwithstanding, he usually denies those appeals. The inmate takes it to court and Corruptions takes a plea through the AGs office.

And to think that both Corruptions and the A.G.'s office complain about frivolous inmate litigation ? !"

Two more cases were handed down by the 3rd Department Appellate Division on January 10, 2008, copies of which follow:

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
________________________________________

Matter of Toney v Goord
2008 NY Slip Op 00138
Decided on January 10, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 10, 2008

502340
[*1]In the Matter of DEVON TONEY, Petitioner,

v

GLENN S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.


Calendar Date: November 26, 2007
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ.


Devon Toney, Elmira, petitioner pro se.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany
(Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violent conduct, creating a disturbance, harassment, refusing a direct order and making threats. The Attorney General has informed this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record. Accordingly, because petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Roman v Goord, 41 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2007]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
________________________________________

Matter of Fragosa v Willis
2008 NY Slip Op 00148
Decided on January 10, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 10, 2008

502806
[*1]In the Matter of ANTHONY FRAGOSA, Petitioner,

v

W. WILLIS, as Hearing Officer, Respondent.


Calendar Date: November 26, 2007
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ.


Anthony Fragosa, Comstock, petitioner pro se.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany
(Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of possessing property in an unauthorized area, possessing contraband and damaging state property. The Attorney General has informed this Court that, during the pendency of this proceeding, the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record. Accordingly, because petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition is now dismissed as moot (see Matter of Ward v Goord, 43 AD3d 1257, 1257 [2007]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Another very recent example follows:

-------------

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
________________________________________

Matter of Nowicki v Selsky
2008 NY Slip Op 00318
Decided on January 17, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 17, 2008

502422
[*1]In the Matter of STEVEN NOWICKI, Petitioner,

v

DONALD SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.


Calendar Date: November 26, 2007
Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ.


Steven Nowicki, Comstock, petitioner pro se.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Andrea
Oser of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of refusing a direct order. The Attorney General has advised that this determination has since been administratively reversed and that all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the proceeding must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Cabassa v Goord, 36 AD3d 1034 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.