Herrera v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herrera v. Coughlin

171 A.D.2d 1081, 579 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6852

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 1081 (Herrera v. Coughlin) 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

Herrera v. Coughlin, 171 A.D.2d 1081, 579 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that he was denied the right to present witnesses on his behalf (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]). After two of the four inmate witnesses requested by petitioner testified, the Hearing Officer asked petitioner whether the other proposed witnesses would add testimony different from that already elicited. Although petitioner’s employee assistant interviewed each of the proposed witnesses, petitioner refused to reveal the nature of the proposed testimony, insisting that the Hearing Officer would know it when he heard them testify. The Hearing Officer then refused to permit the remaining two witnesses to testify, concluding that their testimony would be redundant. Petitioner advances no claim that the rejected witnesses would have offered additional material testimony (see, Matter of Bates v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 854, Iv denied 74 NY2d 602). We conclude that, under the circumstances, the Hearing Officer made a meaningful effort to ascertain whether the proposed testimony would be material or redundant and that he did not abuse his discretion in refusing to permit those witnesses to testify when the effort was frustrated by petitioner’s conduct. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — Article 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that he was denied the right to present witnesses on his behalf (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]). After two of the four inmate witnesses requested by petitioner testified, the Hearing Officer asked petitioner whether the other proposed witnesses would add testimony different from that already elicited. Although petitioner’s employee assistant interviewed each of the proposed witnesses, petitioner refused to reveal the nature of the proposed testimony, insisting that the Hearing Officer would know it when he heard them testify. The Hearing Officer then refused to permit the remaining two witnesses to testify, concluding that their testimony would be redundant. Petitioner advances no claim that the rejected witnesses would have offered additional material testimony (see, Matter of Bates v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 854, Iv denied 74 NY2d 602). We conclude that, under the circumstances, the Hearing Officer made a meaningful effort to ascertain whether the proposed testimony would be material or redundant and that he did not abuse his discretion in refusing to permit those witnesses to testify when the effort was frustrated by petitioner’s conduct. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — Article 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 1081, 579 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack