From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Readdon v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 2000
272 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 11, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.) entered June 1, 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.

Willie Readdon, Albion, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of participating in and/or urging others to participate in an action detrimental to the order of the facility after petitioner ordered various inmates to refuse their meals in a protest against the facility's food. Initially, we reject petitioner's contention that he was denied effective inmate assistance because his assistant failed to obtain statements from petitioner's requested witnesses. The record reveals that all of petitioner's witnesses testified at the hearing and, therefore, petitioner has failed to establish how he was prejudiced by the lack of written statements (see, Matter of Dawes v. Coughlin, 217 A.D.2d 726, 727, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 712;Matter of Bryant v. Mann, 160 A.D.2d 1086, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 706).

Next, we reject petitioner's contention that the 24-hour rule was violated. The record reveals that petitioner was served the misbehavior report on December 31, 1998 and also met with his assistant the same day. Petitioner again met with his assistant on January 4, 1999. Subsequently, the hearing commenced several hours later. Accordingly, the hearing was commenced at least 24 hours after petitioner's first meeting with the assistant and the rule was not violated (see, 7 NYCRR 254.6 [a]; Matter of Feliciano v. Selsky, 239 A.D.2d 799). Further, petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from any other irregularities in the record (see, Matter of Fama v. Mann, 196 A.D.2d 919, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 662).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Readdon v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 2000
272 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Readdon v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WILLIE READDON, Appellant, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Director…

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

Date published: May 11, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 484

Citing Cases

McCants v. Travis

Thus, any challenge to his mental competency is not properly preserved for our review (see, Matter of Green…

Hart v. Rodriguez

We reject petitioner's contention that he was not provided adequate employee assistance. Initially, the…