Dawes v. Selsky
Opinion of the Court
—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination that he violated inmate rules 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [possession of contraband]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i] [smuggling]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Mabery v Coughlin, 168 AD2d 879, lv denied 77 NY2d 808; Matter of Shakoor v Coughlin, 165 AD2d 917, 918, appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 866). Petitioner was not denied his right to present evidence in support of his defense; he failed to show that the documentary evidence and testimony he sought to present at the hearing were relevant to the charges against him (see, Matter of Hendricks v Scully, 206 AD2d 427). Further, even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies with re
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.