From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Dawes v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1997
242 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 30, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Hayes, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination that he violated inmate rules 113.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [possession of contraband]) and 114.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i] [smuggling]) is supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Mabery v. Coughlin, 168 A.D.2d 879, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 808; Matter of Shakoor v Coughlin, 165 A.D.2d 917, 918, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 866). Petitioner was not denied his right to present evidence in support of his defense; he failed to show that the documentary evidence and testimony he sought to present at the hearing were relevant to the charges against him ( see, Matter of Hendricks v Scully, 206 A.D.2d 427). Further, even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his contention that he was denied his right to an impartial Hearing Officer ( see, Matter of Nelson v. Coughlin, 188 A.D.2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 834), there is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from the alleged bias ( see, Matter of Rosa v. Coombe, 238 A.D.2d 814; Matter of Gardiner v Coughlin, 190 A.D.2d 962, 963, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 710).


Summaries of

Matter of Dawes v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1997
242 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Dawes v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of IAN DAWES, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Director of…

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

Date published: Sep 30, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
673 N.Y.S.2d 1024

Citing Cases

Matter of Swan v. Williams

titioner violated inmate rule 104.13 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv] [creating a disturbance]) is supported by…

Matter of Rodriguez v. Herbert [4th Dept 2000

Although the Hearing Officer did not give a written statement to petitioner concerning the refusal to call…