Matos v. Walker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matos v. Walker

191 A.D.2d 1029, 595 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 1029 (Matos v. Walker) 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

Matos v. Walker, 191 A.D.2d 1029, 595 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner argues that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence because neither the inmate whom he allegedly assaulted nor the correction officers who authored the misbehavior reports testified at petitioner’s Tier III disciplinary hearing. That argument lacks merit because the misbehavior reports constituted substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The Hearing Officer was entitled to credit those reports over the testimony of petitioner (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra; Matter of Riggins v Kelly, 163 AD2d 912). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his argument that the charges were redundant (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071). We have examined his remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner argues that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence because neither the inmate whom he allegedly assaulted nor the correction officers who authored the misbehavior reports testified at petitioner’s Tier III disciplinary hearing. That argument lacks merit because the misbehavior reports constituted substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The Hearing Officer was entitled to credit those reports over the testimony of petitioner (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra; Matter of Riggins v Kelly, 163 AD2d 912). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his argument that the charges were redundant (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071). We have examined his remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 1029, 595 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matos-v-walker-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack