Perez v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Coombe

245 A.D.2d 1075, 666 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13850

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 1075 (Perez v. Coombe) 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

Perez v. Coombe, 245 A.D.2d 1075, 666 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of possession of heroin and smuggling. The record does not support the contention of petitioner that he was denied his right to call witnesses on his behalf (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]). The record establishes that the Hearing Officer conducted an extended hearing in order to give petitioner the opportunity to identify and question witnesses. The Hearing Officer called every individual who was identified as a witness to relevant events (see, Matter of Nieves v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 943) and thereafter conducted the hearing without a further request by petitioner for additional witnesses. Petitioner thus failed to establish the existence of any additional relevant information (see, Matter of Cowart v Pico, 213 AD2d 853, 855, lv denied 85 NY2d 812). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyo[1076]*1076ming County, Dadd, J.—CPLR art 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of possession of heroin and smuggling. The record does not support the contention of petitioner that he was denied his right to call witnesses on his behalf (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]). The record establishes that the Hearing Officer conducted an extended hearing in order to give petitioner the opportunity to identify and question witnesses. The Hearing Officer called every individual who was identified as a witness to relevant events (see, Matter of Nieves v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 943) and thereafter conducted the hearing without a further request by petitioner for additional witnesses. Petitioner thus failed to establish the existence of any additional relevant information (see, Matter of Cowart v Pico, 213 AD2d 853, 855, lv denied 85 NY2d 812). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyo[1076]*1076ming County, Dadd, J.—CPLR art 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 1075, 666 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack