Blake v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. Coombe

226 A.D.2d 1123, 642 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5646

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

DecidedApril 19, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 1123 (Blake v. Coombe) 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

Blake v. Coombe, 226 A.D.2d 1123, 642 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the argument of petitioner that he was denied the right to call a witness at the disciplinary hearing. The record does not establish that petitioner requested the testimony of that witness at the disciplinary hearing (see, Matter of Gomez v Coughlin, 140 AD2d 902, 904).

The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]), prohibiting possession of a weapon by an inmate, is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s denial of the charge raised an issue of credibility, which the Hearing Officer resolved against petitioner (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 617). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Pine, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the argument of petitioner that he was denied the right to call a witness at the disciplinary hearing. The record does not establish that petitioner requested the testimony of that witness at the disciplinary hearing (see, Matter of Gomez v Coughlin, 140 AD2d 902, 904).

The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]), prohibiting possession of a weapon by an inmate, is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s denial of the charge raised an issue of credibility, which the Hearing Officer resolved against petitioner (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 617). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Pine, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 1123, 642 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack