Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | 523237. |
| Citation | 155 A.D.3d 1137,62 N.Y.S.3d 828 (Mem) |
| Parties | In the Matter of Glasco WRIGHT, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
155 A.D.3d 1137
62 N.Y.S.3d 828 (Mem)
In the Matter of Glasco WRIGHT, Appellant,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION et al., Respondents.
523237.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov. 2, 2017.
Glasco Wright, Elmira, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hayden, J.), entered June 3, 2016 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report dated January 6, 2015 with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting smuggling and stealing state property. Petitioner was served with a copy of the misbehavior report the following day, and his tier II disciplinary hearing commenced on January 9, 2015. The hearing, which was adjourned to obtain the testimony
of an employee witness, resumed on January 28, 2015, at which time the Hearing Officer advised petitioner that he had previously obtained an extension to complete the hearing by that date. At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges, and a penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination—primarily contending that the hearing was not completed in a timely manner. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal by petitioner ensued.
We affirm. "Pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251–5.1(b), a hearing must be completed within 14 days of the writing of the misbehavior report, unless otherwise authorized" (Matter of James v. Goord, 28 A.D.3d 885, 886, 812 N.Y.S.2d 713 [2006] ), and "[t]he 14–day period ... is calculated by excluding the day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Annucci
...obtain the testimony of witnesses, which is permissible (see Matter of Wright v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 155 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 62 N.Y.S.3d 828 [3d Dept. 2017], appeal dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1090, 69 N.Y.S.3d 857, 92 N.E.3d 1247 [2018] ). Moreover, that regulati......
-
People v. Miller
...counsel and understood its meaning and did not impermissibly lump this right with the other appellate rights automatically forfeited by 62 N.Y.S.3d 828a guilty plea (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Fishel, 128 A.D.3d 15, 17, 6 N.Y.S.3d 312......
-
Weston v. Loughren
...within the time frame provided for by the extension (see Matter of Wright v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 155 A.D.3d 1137, 1138 [3d Dept 2017], appeal dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1090 [2018]). "In any event, compliance with the regulatory time limits contained in 7 NYCRR 25......
-
Caldwell v. Venettozzi, 526219
...the time frame provided for in the final extension (see Matter of Wright v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 155 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 62 N.Y.S.3d 828 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1090, 69 N.Y.S.3d 857, 92 N.E.3d 1247 [2018] ; Matter of Vidal v. Annucci, 149 A.D.3d ......