Martinez v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Johnson

255 A.D.2d 967, 679 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12230

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 967 (Martinez v. Johnson) 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

Martinez v. Johnson, 255 A.D.2d 967, 679 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The written misbehavior report, augmented by the testimony of the correction officer who authored it, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). There is no support in the record for petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was physically tampered with after it was received by the review officer and served on petitioner. In any event, petitioner failed to establish that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged tampering (see, Matter of Mosley v Goord, 242 AD2d 906, 907). There also is no support in the record for petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was not impartial (see, Matter of Ortiz v Rourke, 241 AD2d 962, 963). Petitioner failed to object at the hearing to the Hearing Officer’s alleged off-the-record investigation (see, Matter of Bramble v Mead, 242 AD2d 858, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). In any event, the Hearing Officer’s brief reference to an extraneous fact had no bearing on [968]*968petitioner’s defense or the case against petitioner (see, Matter of Collazo v Coombe, 235 AD2d 654). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Punch, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The written misbehavior report, augmented by the testimony of the correction officer who authored it, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). There is no support in the record for petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was physically tampered with after it was received by the review officer and served on petitioner. In any event, petitioner failed to establish that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged tampering (see, Matter of Mosley v Goord, 242 AD2d 906, 907). There also is no support in the record for petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was not impartial (see, Matter of Ortiz v Rourke, 241 AD2d 962, 963). Petitioner failed to object at the hearing to the Hearing Officer’s alleged off-the-record investigation (see, Matter of Bramble v Mead, 242 AD2d 858, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). In any event, the Hearing Officer’s brief reference to an extraneous fact had no bearing on [968]*968petitioner’s defense or the case against petitioner (see, Matter of Collazo v Coombe, 235 AD2d 654). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Punch, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 967, 679 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack