Rivers v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivers v. Williams

252 A.D.2d 986, 676 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8524

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 986 (Rivers v. Williams) 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

Rivers v. Williams, 252 A.D.2d 986, 676 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner failed to raise on his administrative appeal the contentions that he was denied his right to call a witness at his disciplinary hearing and that he should have been allowed to submit to a medical examination and examine the results of a medical examination of the victim. Thus, petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to those contentions (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). There is no merit to the contentions of petitioner that correction officials should have notified him in advance that the Hearing Officer intended to interview a confidential informant and that he was denied the right to question the informant (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]; Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 119). The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the victim and the confidential informant, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Ruger v Goord, 252 AD2d 989 [decided herewith]). The testimony of petitioner and the inmate witnesses called by him to testify merely raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Pigott, Jr., J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner failed to raise on his administrative appeal the contentions that he was denied his right to call a witness at his disciplinary hearing and that he should have been allowed to submit to a medical examination and examine the results of a medical examination of the victim. Thus, petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to those contentions (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). There is no merit to the contentions of petitioner that correction officials should have notified him in advance that the Hearing Officer intended to interview a confidential informant and that he was denied the right to question the informant (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]; Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 119). The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the victim and the confidential informant, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Ruger v Goord, 252 AD2d 989 [decided herewith]). The testimony of petitioner and the inmate witnesses called by him to testify merely raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Pigott, Jr., J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 986, 676 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivers-v-williams-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack