Green v. McGinnis

281 A.D.2d 671, 721 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2026
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 671 (Green v. McGinnis) 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
Green v. McGinnis, 281 A.D.2d 671, 721 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

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

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting the refusal of a direct order and obstruction of visibility into his cell. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Pryce v Goord, 274 AD2d 804). We also reject petitioner’s contention that he was denied the right to call a particular witness since this witness lacked personal knowledge of the incident (see, Matter of Dabney v Murphy, 278 AD2d 714; Matter of Pabon v Coombe, 249 AD2d 629, 629-630). Nor do we find that he was improperly denied the right to introduce documentary evidence in his defense as it is clear [672]*672that the documents in question were immaterial or irrelevant to the charges (see, Matter of Fletcher v Murphy, 249 AD2d 638, 639). Finally, we are unpersuaded that the Hearing Officer was biased and, in any event, petitioner failed to establish that the outcome of the hearing flowed from bias (see, Matter of Amaker v Senkowski, 278 AD2d 725; Matter of Lawrence v Headley, 257 AD2d 837).

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin 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

Related

Rios v. Selsky
32 A.D.3d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Flenon v. Goord
24 A.D.3d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Tumminia v. Senkowski
290 A.D.2d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Abdul-Malik v. Keesler
288 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D.2d 671, 721 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-mcginnis-nyappdiv-2001.