From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Di Salvo v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 22, 1999
260 A.D.2d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 22, 1999

Mercure, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.


Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating three prison disciplinary rules in connection with his assault on another inmate. Petitioner challenges the determination, claiming that a number of procedural errors require its annulment. We note that although petitioner has abandoned his substantial evidence argument on appeal, the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court as the petition and answer raised that issue before Supreme Court (cf., Matter of K T D Enters. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 205 A.D.2d 938, 939, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 807).

Initially, we find that although the hearing did not conclude within 14 days of the writing of the misbehavior report (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]), it was completed in accordance with a valid extension due to witness unavailability and, as such, was not untimely (see, Matter of Jones v. Selsky, 223 A.D.2d 990). Next we reject the contention that the misbehavior report was insufficient to apprise petitioner of the charges. To the contrary, the report describes with specificity the incident and the rules violated (see, Matter of Couch v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 720, 721).

Petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer erred by not personally interviewing the witnesses who had refused to testify at his hearing is similarly unpersuasive in light of the fact that "a Hearing Officer is not required to personally interview a witness who refuses to testify, as long as the Hearing Officer makes a sufficient inquiry into the facts surrounding the refusal in order to determine that the refusal is genuine" (Matter of Colon v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 582, 584). We are similarly unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that he was denied an impartial Hearing Officer since adverse evidentiary rulings are not indicative of bias (see, Matter of Williams v. Goord, 242 A.D.2d 842).

Contrary to petitioner's assertion, we do not find that he was improperly denied the right to call witnesses at his hearing. Specifically, the testimony of a fellow inmate was properly denied as irrelevant to the proceeding (see, Matter of Guerrero v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 676, 677). Further, although petitioner at one point indicated that he wanted a certain correction officer to testify, by subsequently failing to call that witness when specifically asked whether he had any more testimony to present, he failed to preserve the issue (see, Matter of Guzman v. Coughlin, 90 A.D.2d 666).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Di Salvo v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 22, 1999
260 A.D.2d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Di Salvo v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN Di SALVO, Appellant, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Reviewer…

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

Date published: Apr 22, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 533

Citing Cases

Mulcahy v. Selsky

Likewise, the superintendent's testimony was properly precluded as redundant (see,id., at 792; Matter of…

Matter of Rossi v. Portuondo

Petitioner is also incorrect in claiming that, in one of the hearings, he was denied the right to call an…