Cliff v. Carpenter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cliff v. Carpenter

275 A.D.2d 838, 713 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9357

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 838 (Cliff v. Carpenter) 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

Cliff v. Carpenter, 275 A.D.2d 838, 713 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier II prison disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of harassment. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report as well as the testimony offered at the hearing provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter Headley v Goord, 274 AD2d 714).

We also reject petitioner’s contentions that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing and that his guilt was predetermined by virtue of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer. Petitioner was afforded a full opportunity to testify and to call and examine witnesses. We are unable to say that the result of the hearing flowed from bias on the part of the Hearing Officer rather than from the nature and quality of the evidence presented (see, Matter of Couch v Goord, 255 AD2d 720). Petitioner’s contentions that he was denied access to certain items of evidence is without merit as the record reveals that the evidence sought did not exist (see, Matter of Weatherly v Goord, 268 AD2d 642). Petitioner’s remaining claims, that he was unable to prepare a defense and that the hearing was untimely, are also without merit.

Spain, J. P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 Washington County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier II prison disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of harassment. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report as well as the testimony offered at the hearing provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter Headley v Goord, 274 AD2d 714).

We also reject petitioner’s contentions that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing and that his guilt was predetermined by virtue of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer. Petitioner was afforded a full opportunity to testify and to call and examine witnesses. We are unable to say that the result of the hearing flowed from bias on the part of the Hearing Officer rather than from the nature and quality of the evidence presented (see, Matter of Couch v Goord, 255 AD2d 720). Petitioner’s contentions that he was denied access to certain items of evidence is without merit as the record reveals that the evidence sought did not exist (see, Matter of Weatherly v Goord, 268 AD2d 642). Petitioner’s remaining claims, that he was unable to prepare a defense and that the hearing was untimely, are also without merit.

Spain, J. P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 838, 713 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cliff-v-carpenter-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack