Riley v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riley v. Fischer

58 A.D.3d 976, 871 N.Y.S.2d 475

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 976 (Riley v. Fischer) 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

Riley v. Fischer, 58 A.D.3d 976, 871 N.Y.S.2d 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff, engaging in violent conduct, refusing a direct order and violating frisk procedures. At the conclusion of the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. The administrative affirmance of that determination prompted petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.

We initially note that Supreme Court improperly transferred the matter to this Court inasmuch as the petition does not appear to raise a question of substantial evidence (see Matter of Burgess v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2008]). Nevertheless, we will retain jurisdiction and address the merits of the petition in the interest of judicial economy (see id.).

With respect to petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of adequate employee assistance, it is wholly unsubstantiated by the record (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]). In particular, although petitioner claims that he was denied the right to call witnesses, it is clear from the record that he had the opportunity to call more witnesses at the hearing and declined. Thus, the alleged inadequacies in petitioner’s proof did not flow from any incompetence of his employee assistant. Likewise, there is no record support for petitioner’s assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased, nor is there any indication that the determination in issue flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Purcell v McKoy, 54 AD3d 1113, 1114 [2008]). To [977]*977the extent not specifically addressed herein, petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unavailing.

Peters, J.P, Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.j 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting staff, engaging in violent conduct, refusing a direct order and violating frisk procedures. At the conclusion of the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. The administrative affirmance of that determination prompted petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.

We initially note that Supreme Court improperly transferred the matter to this Court inasmuch as the petition does not appear to raise a question of substantial evidence (see Matter of Burgess v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2008]). Nevertheless, we will retain jurisdiction and address the merits of the petition in the interest of judicial economy (see id.).

With respect to petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of adequate employee assistance, it is wholly unsubstantiated by the record (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]). In particular, although petitioner claims that he was denied the right to call witnesses, it is clear from the record that he had the opportunity to call more witnesses at the hearing and declined. Thus, the alleged inadequacies in petitioner’s proof did not flow from any incompetence of his employee assistant. Likewise, there is no record support for petitioner’s assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased, nor is there any indication that the determination in issue flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Purcell v McKoy, 54 AD3d 1113, 1114 [2008]). To [977]*977the extent not specifically addressed herein, petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unavailing.

Peters, J.P, Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.j concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 976, 871 N.Y.S.2d 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack