Wright v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Scully

124 A.D.2d 805, 508 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62126

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 805 (Wright 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

Wright v. Scully, 124 A.D.2d 805, 508 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner was confined to a special housing unit and charged with misbehavior following an altercation with a correctional officer. He contends that he was deprived of due process of law because of inadequate assistance by the inmate assistant he selected to aid in the preparation of his defense (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a] [2]). The respondents do not dispute that the inmate assistant neglected to report the results of his investigation of the incident to the petitioner prior to the hearing, as required by 7 NYCRR 251-4.2. However, under the circumstances of this case, we find no violation of the petitioner’s due process rights. The hearing record demonstrates that despite the inmate assistant’s failure to fulfill his obligations, mainly in reporting the results of the investigation to the petitioner, the petitioner was fully able to examine all his witnesses and present his defense to the Hearing Officer (cf. People ex rel. Selcov v Coughlin, 98 AD2d 733; Matter of Mallard v Dalsheim, 97 AD2d 545). Furthermore, we note that the petitioner raised no objection at the hearing with regard to the performance of his inmate assistant and was not prejudiced by the testimony presented on his behalf (see, Matter of Humphries v Coughlin, 112 AD2d 561). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

The petitioner was confined to a special housing unit and charged with misbehavior following an altercation with a correctional officer. He contends that he was deprived of due process of law because of inadequate assistance by the inmate assistant he selected to aid in the preparation of his defense (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a] [2]). The respondents do not dispute that the inmate assistant neglected to report the results of his investigation of the incident to the petitioner prior to the hearing, as required by 7 NYCRR 251-4.2. However, under the circumstances of this case, we find no violation of the petitioner’s due process rights. The hearing record demonstrates that despite the inmate assistant’s failure to fulfill his obligations, mainly in reporting the results of the investigation to the petitioner, the petitioner was fully able to examine all his witnesses and present his defense to the Hearing Officer (cf. People ex rel. Selcov v Coughlin, 98 AD2d 733; Matter of Mallard v Dalsheim, 97 AD2d 545). Furthermore, we note that the petitioner raised no objection at the hearing with regard to the performance of his inmate assistant and was not prejudiced by the testimony presented on his behalf (see, Matter of Humphries v Coughlin, 112 AD2d 561). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 805, 508 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-scully-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack