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: Eugene PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of making threats against another inmate. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.1
Petitioner's lone contention is that he was denied due process when the Hearing Officer denied his request to call as a witness the officer who locked the prisoners in their cells on the day of the alleged incident. Initially, we note that, inasmuch as petitioner failed to raise this argument in his administrative appeal, it is unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Gibson v. Fischer, 56 A.D.3d 916, 916, 867 N.Y.S.2d 745 [2008]; Matter of Davis v. Burge, 55 A.D.3d 1162, 1162, 866 N.Y.S.2d 428 [2008] ). In any event, were we to reach the merits of petitioner's claim, we would find it unavailing. Inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the duty of locking prisoners in their cells on the day in question was a random assignment that could have been performed by one of nearly 50 officers on duty, we find that petitioner failed to provide sufficient information to identify the witness he sought and, thus, we cannot say that the Hearing Officer failed to use reasonable efforts to secure the witness (see Matter of Davila v. Selsky, 48 A.D.3d 846, 847, 850 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2008]; Matter of Callender v. Selsky, 41 A.D.3d 1065, 1066, 837 N.Y.S.2d 793 [2007] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Petitioner arguably raised the issue of substantial evidence in his petition and the proceeding was transferred to this Court on that basis, but has abandoned that issue by failing to raise it in his brief (see Matter of Baxton v. Goord, 51 A.D.3d 1230, 1230 n., 856 N.Y.S.2d 494 [2008] ).
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: May 14, 2009
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)