Coleman v. Selsky

65 A.D.3d 1400, 885 N.Y.S.2d 235
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 17, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1400 (Coleman v. Selsky) 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
Coleman v. Selsky, 65 A.D.3d 1400, 885 N.Y.S.2d 235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

[1401]*1401Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Devine, J.), entered November 26, 2007 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, received a misbehavior report charging him with a violation of the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting the making of threats, interference with facility personnel and harassment. The charges stemmed from several incidents during which petitioner, among other things, grabbed a correction officer by the forearms and handed her a note inferring that he could hold her hostage. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty on all charges. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of his guilt. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Petitioner’s primary contention on appeal is that, during his tier III disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer failed to properly investigate the reasons why petitioner’s requested witnesses refused to testify. This issue is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as, when informed during the disciplinary hearing of the witnesses’ refusal, petitioner failed to object or request that the Hearing Officer make further inquiry (see Matter of Hassan v Selsky, 27 AD3d 931, 931 [2006]; Matter of Ryan v Goord, 12 AD3d 799, 800 [2004]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are rendered academic by our decision.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, 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

Related

Taylor v. Fischer
89 A.D.3d 1298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 A.D.3d 1400, 885 N.Y.S.2d 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2009.