From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tafari v. Rock

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 28, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-28

In the Matter of Injah TAFARI, Appellant, v. David A. ROCK, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Injah Tafari, Malone, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.



Injah Tafari, Malone, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., SPAIN, MALONE JR., GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 14, 2011 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of lewd conduct after he exposed himself to a correction facility nurse. Petitioner's sole contention on appeal is that he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses in support of his defense that the misbehavior report was in retaliation for complaints against the nurse. Although petitioner explained that he had previously requested that the proposed witnesses commence investigations into alleged on-going retaliatory conduct by the nurse, including this incident, there is no indication that an investigation into the current incident had commenced ( compare Matter of Diaz v. Fischer, 70 A.D.3d 1082, 894 N.Y.S.2d 218 [2010] ). Furthermore, the record establishes that the requested witnesses had no first-hand knowledge of the incident ( see Matter of Tafari v. Fischer, 93 A.D.3d 1054, 1055, 940 N.Y.S.2d 692 [2012];Matter of Pante v. Goord, 73 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 902 N.Y.S.2d 684 [2010];Matter of Trammell v. Selsky, 10 A.D.3d 787, 788–789, 781 N.Y.S.2d 810 [2004] ). Accordingly, there was no error in the Hearing Officer refusing to call petitioner's requested witnesses, and Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Tafari v. Rock

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 28, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Tafari v. Rock

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Injah TAFARI, Appellant, v. David A. ROCK, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 28, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 1321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
96 A.D.3d 1321
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5224

Citing Cases

McMillian v. Lempke

We reject petitioner's contention that he was deprived of his regulatory rights to call certain witnesses and…

Lopez v. Fischer

Further, documents in the record establish that one of the requested witnesses escorted petitioner from his…