From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ortiz v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 2001
281 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

March 1, 2001.

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Angel Ortiz, Marcy, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Nancy A. Spiegel of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

After a pat frisk, petitioner was charged with violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the possession of controlled substances. At the conclusion of a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge, a finding which was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination.

Although the petition raised a substantial evidence issue, petitioner's brief is limited to alleged procedural deficiencies in the hearing. Any error in the alleged failure to provide petitioner with assistance prior to the commencement of the hearing was rectified when the hearing was adjourned and petitioner was provided with assistance (see, Matter of Llull v. Coombe, 238 A.D.2d 761, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 804). Inasmuch as the hearing was not reconvened until more than 24 hours after petitioner met with his assistant, there was no violation of the 24-hour rule (see,Matter of Hein v. Goord, 249 A.D.2d 661). In any event, petitioner has failed to identify any prejudice from the allegedly deficient procedures (see, Matter of Gill v. Selsky, 240 A.D.2d 831). Finally, there was no error in the denial of petitioner's request for two witnesses since their testimony regarding the initial failure to provide petitioner with assistance was irrelevant to the controlled substance charge (see, Matter of Beckles v. Selsky, 273 A.D.2d 584, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 764). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the witnesses' testimony was not necessary to preserve the alleged procedural error which, as noted above, was cured by the adjournment of the hearing and provision of assistance to petitioner.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Ortiz v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 2001
281 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Ortiz v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF ANGEL ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 846