From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Brown v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 3, 1991
169 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 3, 1991

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


There is no merit to petitioner's contention that he was denied due process because the Hearing Officer curtailed his questioning of a correction officer and did not allow him to call two additional witnesses. The Hearing Officer accorded petitioner a full opportunity to establish his defense of mistaken identity and the additional witnesses' testimony was irrelevant (see, Matter of Irby v Kelly, 161 A.D.2d 860, 861). Moreover, petitioner was not entitled to engage in further questioning in the nature of cross-examination (see, Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 N.Y.2d 141, 146). Finally, the correction officer's testimony, her positive identification of petitioner and the misbehavior report constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Bernacet v Coughlin, 145 A.D.2d 802, 802-803, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 603).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Brown v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 3, 1991
169 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Brown v. Scully

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CARLTON BROWN, Appellant, v. CHARLES SCULLY, as…

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

Date published: Jan 3, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
564 N.Y.S.2d 604

Citing Cases

Matter of Samuels v. Coughlin

Each witness was asked the four questions requested by petitioner and neither offered any testimony relevant…