Harding v. Prack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harding v. Prack

118 A.D.3d 1231, 987 N.Y.S.2d 712

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

DecidedJune 26, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 118 A.D.3d 1231 (Harding v. Prack) 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

Harding v. Prack, 118 A.D.3d 1231, 987 N.Y.S.2d 712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[1232]*1232Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assault, violent conduct, fighting and refusing a direct order as a result of a fight between himself and another inmate. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty as charged. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, to the extent that petitioner argues in his petition that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence, he has abandoned that claim by failing to advance it in his brief (see Matter of Huggins v Noeth, 106 AD3d 1351, 1352 [2013]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, he was not improperly denied the right to call the other inmate involved in the fight as a witness. The inmate never agreed to testify and signed two refusal forms that included his reason for refusing (see Matter of Lamage v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1176, 1176 [2012]; Matter of Tulloch v Fischer, 90 AD3d 1370, 1371 [2011]). Further, the Hearing Officer was not required to personally interview the inmate, as he made a sufficient inquiry through a correction officer as to the facts surrounding the refusal (see Matter of Williams v Goord, 36 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2007]; Matter of Bowers v Goord, 264 AD2d 876, 876 [1999]). Finally, petitioner’s contention that he was denied a fair hearing is unavailing as there is no indication in the record that the Hearing Officer was biased or had predetermined his guilt, or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Cornwall v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1507, 1509 [2010]).

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, Garry, Lynch and Clark, 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

[1232]*1232Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assault, violent conduct, fighting and refusing a direct order as a result of a fight between himself and another inmate. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty as charged. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, to the extent that petitioner argues in his petition that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence, he has abandoned that claim by failing to advance it in his brief (see Matter of Huggins v Noeth, 106 AD3d 1351, 1352 [2013]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, he was not improperly denied the right to call the other inmate involved in the fight as a witness. The inmate never agreed to testify and signed two refusal forms that included his reason for refusing (see Matter of Lamage v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1176, 1176 [2012]; Matter of Tulloch v Fischer, 90 AD3d 1370, 1371 [2011]). Further, the Hearing Officer was not required to personally interview the inmate, as he made a sufficient inquiry through a correction officer as to the facts surrounding the refusal (see Matter of Williams v Goord, 36 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2007]; Matter of Bowers v Goord, 264 AD2d 876, 876 [1999]). Finally, petitioner’s contention that he was denied a fair hearing is unavailing as there is no indication in the record that the Hearing Officer was biased or had predetermined his guilt, or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Cornwall v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1507, 1509 [2010]).

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 1231, 987 N.Y.S.2d 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-prack-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack