From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Cowart v. Selsky [3d Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 22, 1999
260 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 22, 1999

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 24, 1998 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Floyd Cowart, Dannemora, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Lew A. Millenbach of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and GRAFFEO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Following a hearing petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing contraband. This charge stemmed from petitioner's alleged possession of a broken commissary mirror, which was not allowed in the special housing unit. After instituting an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we now affirm.

Although the misbehavior report originally charged petitioner with seven rule violations, the Hearing Officer ultimately dismissed or found petitioner not guilty of all but the contraband charge.

Initially, we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner was not impermissibly denied his right to call witnesses based upon the Hearing Officer's failure to call the correction officer who originally issued petitioner his special housing unit property a few months before the subject incident in order to establish that he did not have a mirror at that time. The record indicates that petitioner made no formal request for this witness and the Hearing Officer is under no obligation to call witnesses and present petitioner's case (see, Matter of Faison v. Stinson, 221 A.D.2d 746, 747). In any event, because the alleged absence of a mirror in his cell a few months before the subject incident would not be relevant to the contraband charge in the misbehavior report, we find no error. Petitioner's remaining claims, to the extent that they are properly before this court, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

MIKOLL, J.P., CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Cowart v. Selsky [3d Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 22, 1999
260 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Cowart v. Selsky [3d Dept 1999

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FLOYD COWART, Appellant, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Special…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Apr 22, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 535

Citing Cases

Walton v. Goord

Additionally, petitioner was not deprived of any witnesses. The author of the misbehavior report could not…

Retamozzo v. Ny. Dept. of Corre. Serv

We find that this is sufficient to allow for judicial review ( see Matter of McCain v Goord, 273 AD2d 571).…