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: Chris APPLEWHITE, Appellant, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.), entered January 4, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Alleging various procedural errors only, petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit violent conduct, interference with prison employees, refusing a direct order and threats. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner appeals.
Upon a review of the record, we find petitioner's procedural challenges to be without merit. Because petitioner was already confined to the special housing unit at the time of the incident, the hearing was not required to be commenced within seven days (see 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; Matter of Striplin v. Selsky, 28 A.D.3d 969, 812 N.Y.S.2d 722 [2006] ). In any event, “[a]bsent a showing that substantial prejudice resulted from the delay, the regulatory time limits are construed to be directory rather than mandatory” (Matter of Van Gorder v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 42 A.D.3d 834, 835, 839 N.Y.S.2d 869 [2007] ). We are not persuaded that petitioner was improperly denied the right to present videotape evidence of the incident as the record indicates that no such videotape existed (see Matter of Cargill v. Goord, 29 A.D.3d 1255, 814 N.Y.S.2d 831 [2006] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no impropriety with the appointment of an institutional steward to act as the hearing officer (see 7 NYCRR 254.1; Matter of Wright v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 855, 797 N.Y.S.2d 167 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 711, 804 N.Y.S.2d 35, 837 N.E.2d 734 [2005] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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: November 21, 2007
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)