Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Jose PINEDA, Appellant, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered February 21, 2006 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of assaulting staff and refusing a direct order. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that he was denied the right to have certain witnesses testify at the hearing and that some witnesses were improperly interviewed by the Hearing Officer out of petitioner's presence. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to raise these claims during the administrative hearing. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. The transcript of the disciplinary hearing discloses that petitioner did not raise any objections concerning the absence of witnesses or the Hearing Officer's decision to interview them outside his presence. Consequently, these claims have not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Kilgore v. Goord, 273 A.D.2d 695, 696, 711 N.Y.S.2d 366 [2000] ). While petitioner also failed to preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the transcript, were we to consider it, we would not find that the gaps in the transcript are so significant as to prevent meaningful review (see Matter of Schuler v. McCray, 8 A.D.3d 777, 778, 778 N.Y.S.2d 237 [2004] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 14, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)