At page 847 Finding reasonable efforts made to locate witnesses13 citing cases“information to help identify specific witnesses”
- Farrington v. Annucci, 148 A.D.3d 1810 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017).published With respect to petitioner’s contention that the employee assistant failed to investigate potential witnesses, we conclude that petitioner failed to provide the assistant with any “information to help identify specific witnesses” (Matter o…
- Matter of Allaway v. Prack, 139 A.D.3d 1203 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedCooper v Smith, 115 Misc 2d 689, 689-690 [1982]; cf. Matter of Jones v Bellamy, 80 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2011]; Matter of Davila v Selsky, 48 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]; Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 239 AD2d 854, 854-855 [1997], appeal dismissed 91…
- Elder v. Fischer, 115 A.D.3d 1177 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014).published Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that “reasonable efforts were made to locate petitioner’s witnesses” (Matter of Davila v Selsky, 48 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]).
- Jones v. Bellamy, 80 A.D.3d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).publishedUnder the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to locate these witnesses (see Matter of Tafari v Selsky, 76 AD3d 1144 [2010]; Matter of Davila v Selsky, 48 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]).
- Tafari v. Selsky, 76 A.D.2d 1144 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010).publishedWe find that reasonable efforts were made to locate petitioner’s witness and, thus, his due process rights were not violated (see Matter of Davila v Selsky, 48 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]; Matter of Folk v Goord, 29 AD3d 1182, 1182-1183 [2006]).
- Terrence v. Fischer, 64 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).publishedPetitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied the right to call a correction counselor and a nurse as witnesses is unpreserved for our review given his failure to object at the hearing (see Matter of Brown v Selsky, 49 AD3d 1108 [2008];…
- Perez v. Fischer, 62 A.D.3d 1104 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).publishedInasmuch as the record demonstrates that the duty of locking prisoners in their cells on the day in question was a random assignment that could have been performed by one of nearly 50 officers on duty, we find that petitioner failed to pro…
- Scott v. Fischer, 57 A.D.3d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).publishedHowever, the record reveals that the Hearing Officer arranged for additional documents to be produced in response to petitioner’s request and, in fact, provided petitioner with all of the documents that were relevant to the operation of th…
- Tafari v. Selsky, 56 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).publishedInasmuch as he failed to raise this objection at the hearing, he has not preserved it for our review (see Matter of Davila v Selsky, 48 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]; Matter of Newsome v Selsky, 26 AD3d 565, 566 [2006]).
- Elder, Jarvis v. Fischer, Brian, No. TP 13-01112 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Mar. 21, 2014).published
Show 1 more citing case
- Farrington, Herbert v. Annucci, Anthony, No. CA 15-02042 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Mar. 31, 2017).published
v.
Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr.,[*847] J.), entered November 15, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of weapons. Finding no merit to petitioner’s procedural claims, Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
Petitioner first claims that he was denied adequate employee assistance because his assistant made no effort to locate and interview certain witnesses. However, petitioner was unable to provide any information to help identify specific witnesses, and instead requested that every inmate on his housing company be interviewed. The Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing and attempted to locate a “go-around” sheet that could have identified inmates who witnessed the incident, but discovered that such sheet was missing from the facility’s records. Under these circumstances, we find that reasonable efforts were made to locate petitioner’s witnesses (see Matter of Callender v Selsky, 41 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2007]; Matter of Folk v Goord, 29 AD3d 1182 [2006]). Moreover, the Hearing Officer’s efforts remedied any prehearing deficiencies in the employee assistance (see Matter of Blackwell v Goord, 5 AD3d 883 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 708 [2004]).
Finally, inasmuch as petitioner failed to object at the hearing to the alleged denial of his right to call his correction counselor as a witness, such claim is unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Carter v Goord, 45 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2007]; Matter of Newsome v Selsky, 26 AD3d 565, 566 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P, Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.