From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Anderson v. Morrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 6, 2000
268 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 6, 2000

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered April 19, 1999 in St. Lawrence 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Lessie Anderson, New York City, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, SPAIN, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges the determination finding him guilty of possessing a controlled substance on two separate occasions. Supreme Court determined that the Hearing Officer afforded petitioner his due process rights and, subsequently, dismissed the petition. We affirm. Petitioner's conditional right to call witnesses was not abridged since his potential witnesses' testimony was not relevant as it did not relate to petitioner's innocence or serve to mitigate his guilt (see, Matter of Konigsberg v. Selsky, 255 A.D.2d 702). Accordingly, the record, reviewed as a whole, shows that petitioner was afforded his due process rights and, therefore, his remaining contentions are without merit.

CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, SPAIN, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Anderson v. Morrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 6, 2000
268 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Anderson v. Morrow

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LESSIE ANDERSON, Appellant, v. A. MORROW, as Correction…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
701 N.Y.S.2d 464

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Annucci

See Russell v. Selsky, 50 A.D.3d 1412. -------- "Absent any indication that the requested testimony was…

Jones v. Fischer

Absent any indication that the requested testimony was relevant, annulment is not required ( see Matter of…