From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chastine v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 6, 2003
303 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

92191

Decided and Entered: March 6, 2003.

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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

James Chastine, Auburn, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting fighting after a correction officer observed him in the prison yard engaged in a fist fight with another inmate. Following the administrative affirmance of that decision, petitioner initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding wherein he contends, inter alia, that procedural errors deprived him of a fair hearing.

Although petitioner raised a substantial evidence issue in his CPLR article 78 petition, thereby necessitating transfer to this Court, he has now abandoned that issue. Nevertheless, we will retain this matter in the interest of judicial economy and address his procedural challenges to the underlying determination (see Matter of Ortiz v. Selsky, 272 A.D.2d 809).

We reject petitioner's contention that his rights were violated when he was not present during the telephonic testimony given by the correction officer who prepared the misbehavior report. Although an inmate has the right to be present during the testimony of any witness whom the inmate has called to testify, in this instance, the reporting officer was called as a witness by the Hearing Officer; hence, petitioner had no right to be present (see Matter of La Bounty v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 675, 676, appeal dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 1002; Matter of Collazo v. Coombe, 235 A.D.2d 654). The remaining contentions raised by petitioner, including the allegation of hearing officer bias, have been examined and found to be similarly without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Chastine v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 6, 2003
303 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Chastine v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF JAMES CHASTINE, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, AS DIRECTOR…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 6, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 330

Citing Cases

Ramirez v. State

n, 891 F2d 43, 48 [2d Cir 1986]; see Vigliotti v Selsky, 2014 WL 1451984, *4 [WD NY 2014]; Murray v Arquitt,…

In the Matter of Murphy v. Selsky

Following the administrative affirmance of the decision finding petitioner guilty of the charged misconduct,…