Barrett v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. Senkowski

180 A.D.2d 977, 580 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2888

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 977 (Barrett v. Senkowski) 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

Barrett v. Senkowski, 180 A.D.2d 977, 580 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, his disciplinary hearing was commenced within seven days of his confinement as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a). There was also no error in adjourning the hearing so that petitioner could meet with his employee assistant (see, Matter of Agosto v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 1008, 1009) or in extending the hearing due to the [978]*978unavailability of the Hearing Officer. We have previously held that where, as here, delay was authorized and reasonable and resulted in no prejudice to petitioner, there is no basis to annul a determination of guilt (see, Matter of Taylor v Coughlin, 135 AD2d 992, 993). In any event, petitioner failed to object to either the adjournment or the extension, thereby waiving any claim of error in this regard (see, Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, lv denied 75 NY2d 705). Petitioner’s other claims of procedural error have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit. Finally, we find that the misbehavior report, coupled with petitioner’s own testimony as to his actions toward the correction officer who authored the report, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139-140; Matter of Johnson v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 991, 992).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ,, concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, his disciplinary hearing was commenced within seven days of his confinement as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a). There was also no error in adjourning the hearing so that petitioner could meet with his employee assistant (see, Matter of Agosto v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 1008, 1009) or in extending the hearing due to the [978]*978unavailability of the Hearing Officer. We have previously held that where, as here, delay was authorized and reasonable and resulted in no prejudice to petitioner, there is no basis to annul a determination of guilt (see, Matter of Taylor v Coughlin, 135 AD2d 992, 993). In any event, petitioner failed to object to either the adjournment or the extension, thereby waiving any claim of error in this regard (see, Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, lv denied 75 NY2d 705). Petitioner’s other claims of procedural error have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit. Finally, we find that the misbehavior report, coupled with petitioner’s own testimony as to his actions toward the correction officer who authored the report, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139-140; Matter of Johnson v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 991, 992).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ,, concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 977, 580 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack