From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loper v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 10, 2002
290 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

89662

January 10, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered April 19, 2001 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Tamar Loper, Attica, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Gina M. Ciccone of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

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


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of intentional flooding. Supreme Court rejected petitioner's claimed procedural errors and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals primarily asserting that Supreme Court erred in rejecting his claim that the Hearing Officer improperly denied his request that certain witnesses appear and testify at his disciplinary hearing.

We affirm. The record reveals that the witnesses whose testimony was requested by petitioner signed witness refusal forms which adequately explained the reasons for the inmates' refusal to testify (see, Matter of Jiminez v. Goord, 264 A.D.2d 918, 919; Matter of Gold v. Bradt, 254 A.D.2d 674, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 819). Moreover, petitioner has waived any claim that the Hearing Officer should have conducted a further inquiry in this regard inasmuch as he failed to render an objection at the hearing to the authenticity of the refusals (see, Matter of Hidalgo v. Senkowski, 283 A.D.2d 839). Petitioner's remaining arguments have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Loper v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 10, 2002
290 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Loper v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF TAMAR LOPER, Appellant, v. GLENN GOORD, AS COMMISSIONER…

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

Date published: Jan 10, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
735 N.Y.S.2d 828

Citing Cases

Sowell v. Goord

In any event, petitioner has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies (see,…

Shell v. Goord

ted by a requested witness and containing an adequate reason for the refusal to testify can provide a…