Peart v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peart v. Kelly

134 A.D.2d 843, 521 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51019

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 843 (Peart 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

Peart v. Kelly, 134 A.D.2d 843, 521 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: An inmate who speaks only Spanish is entitled to select a Spanish-speaking employee assistant so that the nature of disciplinary charges may be explained and the inmate can communicate his requests for witnesses or other evidence (7 NYCRR 251-4.1; Matter of Rivera v Smith, 110 AD2d 1043). Although petitioner’s native language is Spanish, prison officials correctly determined that he was conversant in English and did not require a bilingual assistant. Accordingly, petitioner’s failure to select an assistant from the general list and his decision to proceed without an assistant was a circumstance of his own creation and did not amount to a deprivation of due process (see, Matter of Law v Racette, 120 AD2d 846; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983).

Petitioner’s remaining claim that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence lacks merit. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio 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: An inmate who speaks only Spanish is entitled to select a Spanish-speaking employee assistant so that the nature of disciplinary charges may be explained and the inmate can communicate his requests for witnesses or other evidence (7 NYCRR 251-4.1; Matter of Rivera v Smith, 110 AD2d 1043). Although petitioner’s native language is Spanish, prison officials correctly determined that he was conversant in English and did not require a bilingual assistant. Accordingly, petitioner’s failure to select an assistant from the general list and his decision to proceed without an assistant was a circumstance of his own creation and did not amount to a deprivation of due process (see, Matter of Law v Racette, 120 AD2d 846; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983).

Petitioner’s remaining claim that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence lacks merit. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 843, 521 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peart-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack