Reynoso v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reynoso v. Senkowski

210 A.D.2d 709, 621 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 709 (Reynoso 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

Reynoso v. Senkowski, 210 A.D.2d 709, 621 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered September 2, 1993 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

On this appeal, petitioner initially contends that he was denied his right to adequate employee assistance and his right to call witnesses. Petitioner, however, did not raise these issues at his disciplinary hearing and we agree with respondent that he has thereby waived them. In any event, the record fails to offer any support for these contentions. Finally, although petitioner’s administrative review was not completed within the time deadlines imposed by regulation, such time limits are directory rather than mandatory and petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the delay caused him substantial prejudice.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered September 2, 1993 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

On this appeal, petitioner initially contends that he was denied his right to adequate employee assistance and his right to call witnesses. Petitioner, however, did not raise these issues at his disciplinary hearing and we agree with respondent that he has thereby waived them. In any event, the record fails to offer any support for these contentions. Finally, although petitioner’s administrative review was not completed within the time deadlines imposed by regulation, such time limits are directory rather than mandatory and petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the delay caused him substantial prejudice.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 709, 621 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynoso-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack