Chisholm v. Irvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chisholm v. Irvin

209 A.D.2d 1027, 619 N.Y.S.2d 997

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 1027 (Chisholm v. Irvin) 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

Chisholm v. Irvin, 209 A.D.2d 1027, 619 N.Y.S.2d 997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention that the Tier III disciplinary hearing was not conducted in a timely fashion (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1). The record establishes that the hearing was commenced within seven days of receipt of notice by the facility. Petitioner received meaningful employee assistance as required by 7 NYCRR 251-4.2, and the Hearing Officer did not refuse to call witnesses requested by petitioner. Finally, the [1028]*1028contention that petitioner’s rights were violated when respondent prevented petitioner from submitting relevant documentary evidence is without merit. The record establishes that certain documents requested by petitioner did not exist and other documents were confidential in nature and therefore unavailable to petitioner (see, Matter of Morales v Senkowski, 165 AD2d 393). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention that the Tier III disciplinary hearing was not conducted in a timely fashion (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1). The record establishes that the hearing was commenced within seven days of receipt of notice by the facility. Petitioner received meaningful employee assistance as required by 7 NYCRR 251-4.2, and the Hearing Officer did not refuse to call witnesses requested by petitioner. Finally, the [1028]*1028contention that petitioner’s rights were violated when respondent prevented petitioner from submitting relevant documentary evidence is without merit. The record establishes that certain documents requested by petitioner did not exist and other documents were confidential in nature and therefore unavailable to petitioner (see, Matter of Morales v Senkowski, 165 AD2d 393). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 1027, 619 N.Y.S.2d 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisholm-v-irvin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack