Home/New York Court of Appeals/Perez v. Wilmot

Perez v. Wilmot

490 N.E.2d 526, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 499 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16718
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 14, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by145 cases

This text of 490 N.E.2d 526 (Perez v. Wilmot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Perez v. Wilmot, 490 N.E.2d 526, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 499 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16718 (N.Y. 1986).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed. A written misbehavior report by itself can constitute substantial evidence of an inmate’s misconduct (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The report in this case is sufficiently [617]*617relevant and probative to support the findings of the hearing officer. Petitioner’s bare assertion of the defense of justification does not require the hearing officer to call the charging officer as a witness. The hearing officer has no duty to cross-examine anyone, including the reporting officer (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, supra, p 141). If petitioner wished to cross-examine the charging officer, he had the right to call the officer as a witness (see, Matter of Coleman v Coombe, 65 NY2d 777). However, petitioner did not choose to exercise this right. The only witness called by petitioner could not substantiate his justification defense. Thus, the essential issue at the hearing was credibility, and the hearing officer was entitled to credit the charging officer’s report (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, supra, p 141).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dismissing the petition reinstated in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of Johnson v. Griffin
2019 NY Slip Op 123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Ballard v. Kickbush
2018 NY Slip Op 6638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
MatterofOrtegavAnnucci
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
MatterofKalwasinskivPrack
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
MURPHY, KAREEM v. GRAHAM, HAROLD D.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Murphy v. Graham
98 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Mills v. Fischer
85 A.D.3d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Watson v. Fischer
82 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Creech v. SCHOELLKOPH
688 F. Supp. 2d 205 (W.D. New York, 2010)
Armstrong v. Phillips
44 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Grigger v. Goord
36 A.D.3d 910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Valerio v. Selsky
19 A.D.3d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Galdamez v. Davis
11 A.D.3d 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ramsey v. Phillips
11 A.D.3d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Johnson v. Goord
4 A.D.3d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rizzuto v. Murphy
3 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Bernier v. Goord
3 A.D.3d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Lawrence v. Selsky
261 A.D.2d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Lawrence v. Edwards
261 A.D.2d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Delgado v. Coombe
234 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
490 N.E.2d 526, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 499 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-wilmot-ny-1986.