Karlin v. Senkowski

11 A.D.3d 832, 783 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12634
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 28, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 832 (Karlin v. Senkowski) 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
Karlin v. Senkowski, 11 A.D.3d 832, 783 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 21, 2003 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits physical contact with another inmate. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm.

Supreme Court properly rejected petitioner’s assertion that the hearing was not completed in a timely manner. The record establishes that the Hearing Officer was unavailable to complete the hearing within the 14-day time limit, however, a valid extension was obtained and the hearing timely concluded in accordance therewith (see 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]; Matter of Sow v Selsky, 7 AD3d 903 [2004]; Matter of Medina v Portuondo, 298 AD2d 733, 734 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]; Matter of Black v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 794 [1993]). We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that Matter of Edwards v Keane (236 AD2d 396 [1997]) directs that a second hearing officer be assigned when the initial hearing officer is unavailable to complete a hearing within the 14-day time limit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, 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

Related

Farrell v. Selsky
32 A.D.3d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.D.3d 832, 783 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karlin-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-2004.