Oliver v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oliver v. Kelly

125 A.D.2d 947, 510 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63124

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 947 (Oliver v. Kelly) 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

Oliver v. Kelly, 125 A.D.2d 947, 510 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Contrary to the court’s assumption, Matter of Coleman v Coombe (65 NY2d 777) does not require a Hearing Officer to call character witnesses to testify on an inmate’s behalf at disciplinary hearings.

In balancing the State’s considerable interest in the speedy resolution of disciplinary matters with the interest of the prisoner and in light of the questionable value of such evidence, we conclude that the additional burden of calling character witnesses should not be imposed upon prison officials, and that the Hearing Officer did not err by refusing to call petitioner’s counselor as a witness (see, Graham v Baugh[948]*948man, 772 F2d 441, 445). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Contrary to the court’s assumption, Matter of Coleman v Coombe (65 NY2d 777) does not require a Hearing Officer to call character witnesses to testify on an inmate’s behalf at disciplinary hearings.

In balancing the State’s considerable interest in the speedy resolution of disciplinary matters with the interest of the prisoner and in light of the questionable value of such evidence, we conclude that the additional burden of calling character witnesses should not be imposed upon prison officials, and that the Hearing Officer did not err by refusing to call petitioner’s counselor as a witness (see, Graham v Baugh[948]*948man, 772 F2d 441, 445). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 947, 510 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack