Garcia v. Selsky

4 Citing cases

  1. Betances v. Lucien

    47 A.D.3d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    The misbehavior report is silent with respect to whether petitioner was issued a razor, no "razor issue log" was presented at the hearing ( Matter of Harris v Fletcher, 30 AD3d 948, 948), and there is no other "sufficiently relevant and probative" hearsay ( People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139) set forth in the record to suggest that petitioner was issued a razor. Consequently, we conclude that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled ( see Matter of Garcia v Selsky, 266 AD2d 772, 774). Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this matter from petitioner's institutional record.

  2. Amer. Linen Sup. Co. v. M.W.S. Enters

    6 A.D.3d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 12 times

    We therefore modify the order and judgment by denying the motion in part, vacating the second through fifth ordering and decretal paragraphs, and setting aside the verdict in its entirety, and we grant a new trial. Because there must be a new trial, we add that the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the opinion testimony of defendant's purported handwriting expert ( see generally Saggese v. Madison Mut. Ins. Co., 294 A.D.2d 900, 900-901), but erred in refusing to admit in evidence, as irrelevant, handwriting exemplars of defendant's president for the purpose of comparison to his purported signature on the 1994 contract ( see CPLR 4536; see generally Matter of Garcia v. Selsky, 266 A.D.2d 772, 773; 58A N.Y. Jur 2d, Evidence Witnesses, § 706).

  3. Medina v. Portuondo

    298 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    Under the circumstances, the proposed testimony was properly excluded (see Matter of Loper v. McGinnis, supra; Matter of Chappelle v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 779; 779). We further note that the Hearing Officer was not required to produce a handwriting expert (see Matter of Garcia v. Selsky, 266 A.D.2d 772, 773). Petitioner further argues that the determination should be annulled because the correction officer who performed the drug test on the substances did not properly complete Form 2080 (see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [b]). Upon review, we disagree because we find that the testing officer complied with all necessary requirements when completing the form.

  4. Matter of Odom v. Goord

    271 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    The record demonstrates that the correction officer who issued the misbehavior report did not witness petitioner prepare the legal papers in question. Further, he was not legally qualified to render the opinion that the handwriting in the two documents was the same (see, Matter of Garcia v. Selsky, 266 A.D.2d 772, 699 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Smith v. Coughlin, 198 A.D.2d 726). Although the Hearing Officer, as trier of fact, was qualified to make a comparison of the handwriting samples (see, Matter of Thomas v. Coughlin, 145 A.D.2d 695, 696; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-318, at 485 [Farrell 11th ed]), he did not do so. In fact, his decision specifically defers to the correction officer's unqualified opinion that the legal papers in question were authored by petitioner.