Purdy v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Purdy v. Senkowski

242 A.D.2d 804, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 804 (Purdy v. Senkowski) 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

Purdy v. Senkowski, 242 A.D.2d 804, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting harassment, refusing to obey a direct order and creating a disturbance. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior [805]*805report and the testimony of the correction officer who authored it, stating that on the evening in question, petitioner had become upset because the cellblock’s lights had gone out, apparently due to the installation of a new electrical system. Petitioner loudly protested, making threatening and abusive statements to the reporting officer and refusing to obey his orders to desist. The misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting officer were sufficiently relevant and probative to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). We note that the conflicting testimony presented by petitioner and his witnesses merely raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Dawes v McClellan, 226 AD2d 797, 798).

We reject petitioner’s contention that his right to call witnesses was violated. The 17 individuals in question either had no direct knowledge of the incident or would have presented testimony redundant to that presented by the witnesses petitioner was permitted to call (see, Matter of Cowart v Pico, 213 AD2d 853, 855, lv denied 85 NY2d 812). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpersuasive or unpreserved for our review.

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting harassment, refusing to obey a direct order and creating a disturbance. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior [805]*805report and the testimony of the correction officer who authored it, stating that on the evening in question, petitioner had become upset because the cellblock’s lights had gone out, apparently due to the installation of a new electrical system. Petitioner loudly protested, making threatening and abusive statements to the reporting officer and refusing to obey his orders to desist. The misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting officer were sufficiently relevant and probative to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). We note that the conflicting testimony presented by petitioner and his witnesses merely raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Dawes v McClellan, 226 AD2d 797, 798).

We reject petitioner’s contention that his right to call witnesses was violated. The 17 individuals in question either had no direct knowledge of the incident or would have presented testimony redundant to that presented by the witnesses petitioner was permitted to call (see, Matter of Cowart v Pico, 213 AD2d 853, 855, lv denied 85 NY2d 812). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpersuasive or unpreserved for our review.

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 804, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purdy-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack