inmate rule in New York

1984The recording of the witness’ statement is to be made available to the inmate at the hearing unless the hearing officer determines that so doing would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals.” This procedure, which complies with Wolff v McDonnell ( 418 US 539, 566 ), was followed here. * Furthermore, it should be noted that petitioner did not object to this procedure and the record reveals that, under the circumstances of this case, there existed a sound basis for not allowing petitioner to be present while his witness testified. 11 Next, we conclude that the record contains subs

1984During disciplinary proceedings, prisoners have the right to call witnesses, provided that to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals (Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539, 566 ).

2018Petitioner's remaining contentions are not preserved for our review because petitioner failed to raise them at his hearing ( see Matter of Allah v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1507 , 1507 [4th Dept 2014]), and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them because he did not raise them on his administrative appeal ( see Matter of Stewart v Fischer , 109 AD3d 1122 , 1123 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin , 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2018It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed ( see Matter of Liner v Fisher , 96 AD3d 1416 , 1417 [4th Dept 2012]).

2018Petitioner's remaining contentions are not preserved for our review because petitioner failed to raise them at his hearing ( see Matter of Allah v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1507 , 1507 [4th Dept 2014]), and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them because he did not raise them on his administrative appeal ( see Matter of Stewart v Fischer , 109 AD3d 1122 , 1123 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin , 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2018Petitioner's remaining contentions are not preserved for our review because petitioner failed to raise them at his hearing ( see Matter of Allah v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1507 , 1507 [4th Dept 2014]), and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them because he did not raise them on his administrative appeal ( see Matter of Stewart v Fischer , 109 AD3d 1122 , 1123 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin , 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2018Petitioner's remaining contentions are not preserved for our review because petitioner failed to raise them at his hearing ( see Matter of Allah v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1507 , 1507 [4th Dept 2014]), and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them because he did not raise them on his administrative appeal ( see Matter of Stewart v Fischer , 109 AD3d 1122 , 1123 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin , 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [4th Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2016In view of the allegation that defendant received a copy of the inmate rule book upon admittance to the correctional facility ( see Correction Law § 138[2]), the absence of a certified copy of the inmate rule book did not render the information jurisdictionally defective ( see generally People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1492 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 774 [2010]).

2007The inmate claim form and its supplements cannot be deemed an “instrument for the payment of money only,” since no explicit promise to pay a sum certain is set forth within the face of the document, and outside proof is needed to establish any obligation (see Weissman, 88 NY2d at 444-445 ).

2002However, an inmate rule is not unconstitutionally vague if it informs a reasonable person of the nature of the offense prohibited and what is required of him or her (see Matter of Aballe v Coughlin, 216 AD2d 949 ; People v Miller, 106 AD2d 787 ).

2000Further, nothing in the record substantiates petitioner’s claim of Hearing Officer bias, nor has petitioner established that the determination flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Sheppard v Goord, 264 AD2d 916 ).

1999In any event, according the People the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437 ; People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112 ), we conclude that the testimony of the inmate records coordinator is legally sufficient to establish that defendant received an inmate rule book containing a written prohibition and description of contraband (see generally, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925 ; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

1999In any event, according the People the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437 ; People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112 ), we conclude that the testimony of the inmate records coordinator is legally sufficient to establish that defendant received an inmate rule book containing a written prohibition and description of contraband (see generally, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925 ; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

1999In any event, according the People the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437 ; People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112 ), we conclude that the testimony of the inmate records coordinator is legally sufficient to establish that defendant received an inmate rule book containing a written prohibition and description of contraband (see generally, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925 ; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

1999In any event, according the People the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437 ; People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112 ), we conclude that the testimony of the inmate records coordinator is legally sufficient to establish that defendant received an inmate rule book containing a written prohibition and description of contraband (see generally, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925 ; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

1998We have previously held that to satisfy these requirements, such a report need not “itemize in evidentiary detail all aspects of the case” (Matter of Davis v Coughlin, 200 AD2d 904, 905 ; see, Matter of Turner v Coughlin, 162 AD2d 781, 782 ; see also, Matter of LaBounty v Goord, 245 AD2d 675 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 1002 ).

1993The inmate rule prohibiting verbal harassment of correction officers and the use of "insolent, abusive and/or obscene language” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii]) must be judged by the reasonableness standard, which is less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to alleged infringements of fundamental constitutional rights (see, O’Lone v Estate of Shabazz, 482 US 342, 349 ; Salahuddin v Coughlin, supra).

1993The foregoing constitutes proof that petitioner had the requisite notice (see, Matter of Gittens v Coughlin, 184 AD2d 812 ).

1993The inmate rule prohibiting verbal harassment of correction officers and the use of "insolent, abusive and/or obscene language” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii]) must be judged by the reasonableness standard, which is less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to alleged infringements of fundamental constitutional rights (see, O’Lone v Estate of Shabazz, 482 US 342, 349 ; Salahuddin v Coughlin, supra).