From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Igartua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 2007
41 A.D.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-05718.

June 19, 2007.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated June 21, 2005, made after a Tier III superintendent hearing, as modified by a decision of the Director of the Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Program, dated September 7, 2005, finding that the petitioner had violated institutional rules, and imposing penalties.

Ismael Igartua, Coxsackie, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Miller, J.P., Mastro, Krausman and Carni, JJ.


Adjudged that the determination, as modified, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

There is no support for the petitioner's claim that he was denied his right to call witnesses on his behalf. The witnesses that the petitioner requested, including his wife, would have presented testimony that was either immaterial to the matters at issue or redundant to the testimony of other witnesses ( see 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; Matter of Lewis v Coughlin, 198 AD2d 507; Matter of Wiederhold v Scully, 141 AD2d 550).

The determination is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Vega v Coughlin, 202 AD2d 597).


Summaries of

In re Igartua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 2007
41 A.D.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

In re Igartua

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ISMAEL IGARTUA, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 19, 2007

Citations

41 A.D.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5508
836 N.Y.S.2d 889

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Fischer

The sole issue is whether the petitioner's right to call a witness at the disciplinary hearing was violated.…

Rippy v. Selsky

There was no error in the determination not to grant the petitioner's request to call the superintendent of…