In re James D. Wilson

5 Citing cases

  1. In the Matter of Quinney v. Selsky

    18 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    The misbehavior report, documentary evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Brown v. Selsky, 5 AD3d 905, 906; Matter of Lunney v. Selsky, 275 AD2d 820). Any discrepancies in the testimony of the various witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Connell v. Goord, 298 AD2d 748, 748; Matter of Rucano v. Goord, 264 AD2d 888, 888). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias ( see Matter of Jackson v. Smith, 13 AD3d 685, 686, lv denied 4 NY3d 707; Matter of Edwards v. Goord, 12 AD3d 1002, 1003) nor that gaps in the tape prevents meaningful judicial review ( see Matter of Wilson v. Coombe, 237 AD2d 831). Petitioner's remaining claims are either unpreserved for review or are lacking in merit. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

  2. Johnson v. Goord

    305 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    We reject petitioner's claim that the audiotape used to record the last part of his hearing was inaudible, thereby precluding meaningful review. The record discloses that the tape was completely audible, enabling an uninterrupted transcription of the proceedings (see Matter of Wilson v. Coombe, 237 A.D.2d 831, 832). The remaining contentions raised herein, including petitioner's assertions that various procedural errors deprived him of a fair hearing, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

  3. Perez v. Goord

    301 A.D.2d 996 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    The misbehavior report and hearing testimony established that a hand-rolled cigarette containing a leafy green substance, later determined to be marihuana, was confiscated from petitioner during a random frisk of inmates. Even if petitioner's challenge to the chain of custody of the contraband was preserved (see Matter of Wilson v Coombe, 237 A.D.2d 831), we would nevertheless find it to be without merit. Although the correction officer who confiscated the contraband did not personally make a notation on the chain of custody form, "it is enough that another, a secretary or some other staff member, make the notations on the handler's behalf" (Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 A.D.2d 999, 1000, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 705). Furthermore, the record contains the appropriate documentation, which petitioner indicated he received, for the use of the contraband test results (see 7 NYCRR 101.5). Finally, petitioner's contention of hearing officer bias is without merit.

  4. In re Gonzalez v. State Dept. of Corr. Serv

    277 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    In any event, were we to review these arguments, we would find them without merit. The employee assistant interviewed the witnesses requested by petitioner and sufficiently addressed all of his requests for evidence (see, Matter of Faison v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 634, 634-635; Matter of Webb v. Goord, 254 A.D.2d 551, appeal dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 849). Moreover, our review of the hearing transcript reveals only intermittent gaps which do not preclude meaningful review (see, Matter of Wilson v. Coombe, 237 A.D.2d 831, 832). Finally, contrary to petitioner's contention, the fact that the Hearing Officer made unfavorable credibility determinations does not demonstrate that he was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see, Matter of Moncrieffe v. Bennett, 251 A.D.2d 925; Matter of Wan v. Selsky, 231 A.D.2d 812, 814). Petitioner's arguments which have not been explicitly addressed are either unpreserved for our review or without merit.

  5. Matter of Murphy v. Selsky

    239 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 12 times

    In our view, Gray's testimony, combined with the testimony of the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report and the results of the urinalysis tests, provide substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. Petitioner's remaining claim, having not been raised at the disciplinary hearing, has not been preserved for our review ( see, Matter of Tavarez v. Goord, 237 A.D.2d 837, 838; Matter of Wilson v. Coombe, 237 A.D.2d 831). Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.