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: Jesse SHANNON, Petitioner, v. Glenn GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from organizing a demonstration. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report and evidence adduced at the hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Orr v. Selsky, 263 A.D.2d 742, 694 N.Y.S.2d 502; Matter of Rose v. Goord, 259 A.D.2d 806, 684 N.Y.S.2d 447, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 810, 694 N.Y.S.2d 632, 716 N.E.2d 697). As for petitioner's assertion that he was improperly excluded from a portion of the hearing, we are similarly unconvinced. The record reveals that, following an adjournment, petitioner refused to leave his cell to attend the remainder of the hearing and refused to sign a waiver form. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer's decision to continue the hearing in absentia was warranted (see, Matter of Rossi v. Portuondo, 275 A.D.2d 823, 824, 713 N.Y.S.2d 97, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 703, 722 N.Y.S.2d 795, 745 N.E.2d 1017; Matter of Dexter v. Goord, 257 A.D.2d 936, 685 N.Y.S.2d 134). Moreover, inasmuch as petitioner refused to attend the remainder of the hearing, he has waived the right to challenge the proceeding as not having been timely completed (see, Matter of Kalwasinski v. Senkowski, 244 A.D.2d 738, 739, 664 N.Y.S.2d 841). In any event, it is well settled that the 14-day time limit (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1[b] ) is directory, not mandatory, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice flowing from the alleged delay (see, Matter of Byas v. Goord, 272 A.D.2d 800, 801, 708 N.Y.S.2d 509, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 765, 716 N.Y.S.2d 640, 739 N.E.2d 1145). Petitioner's remaining arguments have been considered and found to be meritless or unpreserved for our review.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: June 14, 2001
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)