White v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Scully

156 A.D.2d 942, 549 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16086

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 942 (White v. Scully) 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

White v. Scully, 156 A.D.2d 942, 549 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination made at petitioner’s Tier III disciplinary hearing that he violated certain inmate rules is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Petitioner was not impermissibly denied his right to call witnesses. The Hearing Officer heard testimony from two of petitioner’s four proposed inmate witnesses, and petitioner acknowledged that their testimony was descriptive and complete. Thus the Hearing Officer correctly ruled that the testimony of additional witnesses would be "repetitive and redundant” (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; Matter of Brown v Scully, 137 AD2d 595). The Hearing Officer also properly denied petitioner’s request to call character witnesses (see, Matter of Oliver v Kelly, 125 AD2d 947, Iv denied 69 NY2d 608). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination made at petitioner’s Tier III disciplinary hearing that he violated certain inmate rules is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Petitioner was not impermissibly denied his right to call witnesses. The Hearing Officer heard testimony from two of petitioner’s four proposed inmate witnesses, and petitioner acknowledged that their testimony was descriptive and complete. Thus the Hearing Officer correctly ruled that the testimony of additional witnesses would be "repetitive and redundant” (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; Matter of Brown v Scully, 137 AD2d 595). The Hearing Officer also properly denied petitioner’s request to call character witnesses (see, Matter of Oliver v Kelly, 125 AD2d 947, Iv denied 69 NY2d 608). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 942, 549 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-scully-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack