Pisani v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pisani v. Kelly

147 A.D.2d 945, 537 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1315

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 945 (Pisani 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

Pisani v. Kelly, 147 A.D.2d 945, 537 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The Hearing Officer determined that it would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals if a correction officer, since transferred to another correctional facility, were required to travel to Attica Correctional Facility to testify at petitioner’s Tier III disciplinary hearing (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]). The Hearing Officer, thereafter, interviewed the transferred correction officer by telephone. The officer’s tape-recorded statement was made available to petitioner (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]). The Hearing Officer’s determination had a [946]*946rational basis and complied with the applicable regulation (see, Matter of Coleman v Kelly, 143 AD2d 539; People ex rel. Bradley v Smith, 115 AD2d 225, lv denied 67 NY2d 604; 7 NYCRR 254.5).

Petitioner’s remaining claims have not been preserved for our review (see, Matter of Crutchfield v Kelly, 125 AD2d 955, lv denied 69 NY2d 608; Matter of Purnell v Kelly, 115 AD2d 1010, appeal withdrawn 67 NY2d 938). Were we to address these claims, however, we would find them lacking in merit (see, Matter of Valles v Smith, 116 AD2d 1002, revd on other grounds 69 NY2d 677; Matter of Purnell v Kelly, supra, at 1011). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The Hearing Officer determined that it would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals if a correction officer, since transferred to another correctional facility, were required to travel to Attica Correctional Facility to testify at petitioner’s Tier III disciplinary hearing (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]). The Hearing Officer, thereafter, interviewed the transferred correction officer by telephone. The officer’s tape-recorded statement was made available to petitioner (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]). The Hearing Officer’s determination had a [946]*946rational basis and complied with the applicable regulation (see, Matter of Coleman v Kelly, 143 AD2d 539; People ex rel. Bradley v Smith, 115 AD2d 225, lv denied 67 NY2d 604; 7 NYCRR 254.5).

Petitioner’s remaining claims have not been preserved for our review (see, Matter of Crutchfield v Kelly, 125 AD2d 955, lv denied 69 NY2d 608; Matter of Purnell v Kelly, 115 AD2d 1010, appeal withdrawn 67 NY2d 938). Were we to address these claims, however, we would find them lacking in merit (see, Matter of Valles v Smith, 116 AD2d 1002, revd on other grounds 69 NY2d 677; Matter of Purnell v Kelly, supra, at 1011). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 945, 537 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pisani-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack