Dawes v. McClellan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dawes v. McClellan

223 A.D.2d 890, 636 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 368

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 890 (Dawes v. McClellan) 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

Dawes v. McClellan, 223 A.D.2d 890, 636 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered June 29, 1994 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting harassment as the result of derogatory comments he made to a correction officer. He challenges this determination, arguing that he was denied the right to present documentary evidence at .the hearing and that the Hearing Officer was biased. Upon review of the record, we find both of petitioner’s claims to be without merit. Petitioner was not provided with a copy of the videotape of the incident because no such videotape was in existence at the time of petitioner’s request. Thus, petitioner was not denied access to relevant documentary evidence. Moreover, the record reveals that the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner. Consequently, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Peters, 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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered June 29, 1994 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting harassment as the result of derogatory comments he made to a correction officer. He challenges this determination, arguing that he was denied the right to present documentary evidence at .the hearing and that the Hearing Officer was biased. Upon review of the record, we find both of petitioner’s claims to be without merit. Petitioner was not provided with a copy of the videotape of the incident because no such videotape was in existence at the time of petitioner’s request. Thus, petitioner was not denied access to relevant documentary evidence. Moreover, the record reveals that the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner. Consequently, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 890, 636 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawes-v-mcclellan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack