From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Aviles v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1989
154 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

October 2, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Ritter, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to establish that the notice he received more than 24 hours prior to the commencement of the Superintendent's hearing was inadequate to inform him of the charges against him and to enable him to marshal his evidence and prepare a defense (see, Wolff v McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564). Thus, his allegation that he was denied due process of law by virtue of inadequate and untimely notice was properly rejected.

Also without merit is the petitioner's contention that he was denied his right to an employee assistant at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the hearing (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a] [2]; 254.6). The regulations of the Department of Correctional Services were complied with when the petitioner was given the opportunity to choose an employee assistant several days prior to the commencement of the hearing (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a] [2]; Matter of Scott v Kelly, 143 A.D.2d 540). Although the petitioner did not take advantage of that opportunity at that time, when he ultimately did indicate the desire to be assisted by an employee, the hearing was adjourned until such time as adequate investigation and preparation could be had.

Finally, the record clearly establishes that the Superintendent's hearing was commenced within seven days of the petitioner's initial confinement (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]). Although the hearing was not completed within 14 days of the writing of the misbehavior report, a time extension was duly authorized, based partially on the fact that the petitioner indicated a desire to call 11 witnesses on his own behalf (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]; Matter of Gittens v Sullivan, 151 A.D.2d 481; Matter of Hodges v Scully, 141 A.D.2d 729). Thus, the petitioner's contention that the time limitations contained in 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 were not complied with was also properly rejected. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Aviles v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1989
154 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Aviles v. Scully

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LOUIS AVILES, Appellant, v. CHARLES J. SCULLY, as…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
545 N.Y.S.2d 847

Citing Cases

Moye v. Selsky

Id. Such extensions have previously been authorized in order to accommodate delays resulting from an inmate's…

Matter of Mabry v. Coughlin

Initially, we find that petitioner indicated on his employee assistance form that he wished to waive his…