Vega v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 92 A.D.3d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Vega v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 92 A.D.3d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Barnes v. Lee (nyappdiv, 2017-09-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Barnes v. Lee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Finally, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was disqualified from presiding over the hearing as the Hearing Officer confirmed that he did not respond to the incident, but arrived later only to supervise the frisk out (see 7 NYCRR 254.1; Matter of Vega v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bellinger v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer was not required to recuse herself because she was on duty at the time of the incident and was aware that it had occurred (see Matter of Turner v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1310, 1310-1311 [2012]; Matter of Vega v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]; 7 NYCRR 254.1).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bellinger v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer was not required to recuse herself because she was on duty at the time of the incident and was aware that it had occurred (see Matter of Turner v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1310, 1310-1311 [2012]; Matter of Vega v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]; 7 NYCRR 254.1).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MatterofBellingervVenettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Hearing Officer was not required to recuse herself because she was on duty at the time of the incident and was aware that it had occurred (see Matter of Turner v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1310, 1310-1311 [2012]; Matter of Vega v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]; 7 NYCRR 254.1).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gaston v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Similarly, petitioner was properly denied the arsenal logbook as irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of Vega v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gaston v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Similarly, petitioner was properly denied the arsenal logbook as irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of Vega v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Furthermore, upon reviewing the record, we do not find any indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Vega v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Bezio, 80 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Furthermore, upon reviewing the record, we do not find any indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Vega v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 92 AD3d 991, 992 [2012]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Bezio, 80 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2011]).
In the Matter of Israel Vega
v.
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 2, 2012.
92 A.D.3d 991
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Petitioner contends that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing, primarily because the Hearing Officer was the watch commander and was allegedly involved in the investigation of[*992] the incidents leading to the misbehavior report.* We find this argument to be without merit. Although the Hearing Officer conceded that he acted as the watch commander and knew of the incidents, he stated that he did not witness the events and did not participate in the investigation. Given that the Hearing Officer did not “actually witness[ ] the incident[s],” was not “directly involved in the incident[s],” and did not “investigate[ ] the incident[s],” he was not disqualified from presiding over the hearing under the pertinent regulations (7 NYCRR 254.1; see Matter of Parker v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2010]). Furthermore, upon reviewing the hearing transcript, we do not find that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Truman v Fischer, 75 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2010]; Matter of Arnold v Fischer, 60 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2009]). Petitioner’s claims that he was improperly denied certain witnesses as well as documentation concerning the severity of the inmate’s injuries are unavailing inasmuch as they were redundant or irrelevant to the assault charge (see Matter of Caraway v Herbert, 285 AD2d 778, 778-779 [2001]; Matter of Mabry v Coughlin, 196 AD2d 931 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 664 [1994]).

Mercure, A.RJ., Peters, Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

The petition arguably raised a question of substantial evidence precipitating the transfer of the proceeding to this Court, but petitioner has abandoned that issue by not addressing it in his brief (see Matter of Grant v Prack, 86 AD3d 885, 886 n [2011]).