Salinas v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salinas v. Henderson

40 A.D.2d 939, 337 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 939 (Salinas v. Henderson) 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

Salinas v. Henderson, 40 A.D.2d 939, 337 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County for a hearing. Memorandum: Appel- . lant, an inmate of Auburn State Correctional Facility, lost 90 days’ good time, after a hearing, as a result of his alleged participation in a disturbance at the prison in November, 1970. Following that determination, he instituted an article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court alleging that his hearing at the prison was not conducted according to law. While, as the trial court correctly stated, [940]*940decisions of the Correction Department are not judicially reviewable if made according to law (Correction Law, § 803), nevertheless, we believe that its dismissal of appellant’s petition without a hearing on the grounds that it lacked merit was error. Chapter V of title 7 of the Rules and Regulations of the Correction Department sets forth a procedure to be followed in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Section 253.3 of the Rules and Regulations (7 NYCRR 253.3) provides that the person appointed to conduct the proceeding shall designate an employee “to furnish assistance to the inmate” (subd. [a]), which employee “shall explain the nature of the proceeding and the charge to the inmate * * * [and] ask whether * * * there is any factual matter that can be presented in his hehalf and * * * investigate any reasonable factual claim the inmate may make ” (subd. [b]). In his article 78 application petitioner alleges that he was innocent of the charge and, more specifically, that he had no representation at the hearing and was not permitted to call witnesses in his own behalf and that the hearing was not held according to the Rules and Regulations of the Correction Department. The respondent does not controvert these allegations but merely states that the appellant is not entitled to legal counsel under any circumstances. In our view, petitioner’s uncontroverted allegations present an issue which requires a hearing in Supreme Court in order to determine whether the present hearing which deprived appellant of his ninety days good time was made in violation of lawful procedure (CPLR 7803, subd. 3; CPLR 7804, subd. [g]). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Special Term, denying application for show cause order in article 78' proceeding.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County for a hearing. Memorandum: Appel- . lant, an inmate of Auburn State Correctional Facility, lost 90 days’ good time, after a hearing, as a result of his alleged participation in a disturbance at the prison in November, 1970. Following that determination, he instituted an article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court alleging that his hearing at the prison was not conducted according to law. While, as the trial court correctly stated, [940]*940decisions of the Correction Department are not judicially reviewable if made according to law (Correction Law, § 803), nevertheless, we believe that its dismissal of appellant’s petition without a hearing on the grounds that it lacked merit was error. Chapter V of title 7 of the Rules and Regulations of the Correction Department sets forth a procedure to be followed in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Section 253.3 of the Rules and Regulations (7 NYCRR 253.3) provides that the person appointed to conduct the proceeding shall designate an employee “to furnish assistance to the inmate” (subd. [a]), which employee “shall explain the nature of the proceeding and the charge to the inmate * * * [and] ask whether * * * there is any factual matter that can be presented in his hehalf and * * * investigate any reasonable factual claim the inmate may make ” (subd. [b]). In his article 78 application petitioner alleges that he was innocent of the charge and, more specifically, that he had no representation at the hearing and was not permitted to call witnesses in his own behalf and that the hearing was not held according to the Rules and Regulations of the Correction Department. The respondent does not controvert these allegations but merely states that the appellant is not entitled to legal counsel under any circumstances. In our view, petitioner’s uncontroverted allegations present an issue which requires a hearing in Supreme Court in order to determine whether the present hearing which deprived appellant of his ninety days good time was made in violation of lawful procedure (CPLR 7803, subd. 3; CPLR 7804, subd. [g]). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Special Term, denying application for show cause order in article 78' proceeding.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 939, 337 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salinas-v-henderson-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack