Galdamez v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galdamez v. Davis

11 A.D.3d 535, 782 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 12, 2004·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Chris Davis, Deputy Superintendent of Security of Otisville Correctional Facility, dated July 24, 2003, which affirmed the determination of a hearing officer, made after a Tier II hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the respondent Chris Davis, Superintendent of Security of Otisville Correctional Facility is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d [536]*536615, 616-617 [1986]; Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674 [1995]). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to support the petitioner’s claim that the hearing officer was biased (see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833 [1989]; Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679 [1993]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Chris Davis, Deputy Superintendent of Security of Otisville Correctional Facility, dated July 24, 2003, which affirmed the determination of a hearing officer, made after a Tier II hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the respondent Chris Davis, Superintendent of Security of Otisville Correctional Facility is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d [536]*536615, 616-617 [1986]; Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674 [1995]). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to support the petitioner’s claim that the hearing officer was biased (see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833 [1989]; Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679 [1993]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Galdamez v. Davis, 11 A.D.3d 535, 782 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

11 A.D.3d 535 (Galdamez v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related