Webb v. McGinnis, 271 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Webb v. McGinnis, 271 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: McKinley v. Goord (nyappdiv, 2008-01-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKinley v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Likewise, there is no merit to petitioner’s contention that he was improperly excluded from the hearing as the transcript reveals that petitioner voluntarily removed himself (see Matter of Webb v McGinnis, 271 AD2d 767, 768 [2000].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pettus v. West
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s contention, he was not entitled to employee assistance to aid in his defense, notwithstanding his keeplock status (see 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a]; see also Matter of Vann v Costello, 285 AD2d 924, 924-925 [2001]; Matter of Webb v McGinnis, 271 AD2d 767, 768 [2000]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. D'Adamo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nevertheless, we are of the view that the affidavits presented are sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact which should be resolved only after a hearing (see, People v Jones, 227 AD2d 982 , supra; see also, People v Hawkins, 271 AD2d 767 , supra; People v De Wolf, 155 AD2d 995 , lv denied 75 NY2d 812 ; cf., People v Young, 257 AD2d 764 , lv denied 93 NY2d 931 ; People v Cummings, 194 AD2d 994 , lv denied 82 NY2d 752 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Booker v. Rivera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Instead, petitioner maintains that the policy restricting the use of employee assistants in the majority of tier II proceedings is unconstitutional, an argument this Court has previously considered and rejected (see, Matter of Cliff v De Celle, 260 AD2d 812, 813-814 , ;v denied 93 NY2d 814 ; see also, Matter of Webb v McGinnis, 271 AD2d 767 ; Matter of Rivera v Senkowski, 264 AD2d 873 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael Webb
v.
Michael McGinnis, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 13, 2000.
271 A.D.2d 767
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4226
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered May 4, 1999 in Chemung 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.

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of refusing a direct order after a correction officer ordered petitioner to turn his cell light on and he refused to comply. Petitioner’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful and he thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding raising various procedural claims. Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petition and we affirm.

[*768] Initially we reject petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer removed him from the hearing. A review of the record indicates that petitioner voluntarily left the hearing and, therefore, waived his right to be present at the hearing (see, Matter of Jihad v Mann, 159 AD2d 914, lv denied 76 NY2d 706). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, he was not entitled to an assistant to aid in his defense under the circumstances pertaining to his tier II hearing (see generally, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1) and he has failed to demonstrate that this policy is unconstitutional (see, Matter of Rivera v Senkowski, 264 AD2d 873). Equally unpersuasive is petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer who presided over petitioner’s tier II hearing was not impartial. Our independent review of the hearing transcript fails to reveal any indication of bias (see, Matter of Mafuz v Goord, 260 AD2d 806).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments, including his contention that he was denied relevant documentary evidence and the right to call witnesses, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.