Anderson v. Morrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Morrow

268 A.D.2d 638, 701 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 88

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 638 (Anderson v. Morrow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Morrow, 268 A.D.2d 638, 701 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered April 19, 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.

[639]*639Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges the determination finding him guilty of possessing a controlled substance on two separate occasions. Supreme Court determined that the Hearing Officer afforded petitioner his due process rights and, subsequently, dismissed the petition. We affirm. Petitioner’s conditional right to call witnesses was not abridged since his potential witnesses’ testimony was not relevant as it did not relate to petitioner’s innocence or serve to mitigate his guilt (see, Matter of Konigsberg v Selsky, 255 AD2d 702). Accordingly, the record, reviewed as a whole, shows that petitioner was afforded his due process rights and, therefore, his remaining contentions are without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered April 19, 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.

[639]*639Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges the determination finding him guilty of possessing a controlled substance on two separate occasions. Supreme Court determined that the Hearing Officer afforded petitioner his due process rights and, subsequently, dismissed the petition. We affirm. Petitioner’s conditional right to call witnesses was not abridged since his potential witnesses’ testimony was not relevant as it did not relate to petitioner’s innocence or serve to mitigate his guilt (see, Matter of Konigsberg v Selsky, 255 AD2d 702). Accordingly, the record, reviewed as a whole, shows that petitioner was afforded his due process rights and, therefore, his remaining contentions are without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 638, 701 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-morrow-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack