Opinion

BROWN, NATHAN v. PRACK, ALBERT

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Feb 3, 2017
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.4%

The opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1

TP 16-00249

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF NATHAN BROWN, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALBERT PRACK, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL HOUSING,

R. CALIDONNA, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT

ADMINISTRATION, AND MOHAWK CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, RESPONDENTS.

NATHAN BROWN, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Norman I.

Siegel, J.], entered July 2, 2015) to review a determination of

respondents. The determination found after a tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to

annul a determination finding him guilty, following a tier III

hearing, of violating various inmate rules, and imposing a penalty.

At the outset, we note that, “ ‘[b]ecause the petition did not raise a

substantial evidence issue, Supreme Court erred in transferring the

proceeding to this Court’ ” (Matter of Wearen v Deputy Supt. Bish, 2

AD3d 1361, 1362). In the interest of judicial economy, we

nevertheless address petitioner’s contention that he was denied his

right to contact his attorney (see id.). Nothing in the record

indicates that petitioner sought to contact his attorney prior to the

hearing (cf. Matter of Jeckel v New York State Dept. of Corr., 111

AD3d 1180, 1181). Rather, the record establishes that petitioner

asked to consult with his attorney after the tier III hearing

commenced, and it is well established that an inmate does not have a

right to counsel at that hearing (see Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539,

570; Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 146). We therefore

confirm the determination and dismiss the petition.

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.