(Download) "Matter Michael Hilton v. Stephen Dalsheim" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Michael Hilton v. Stephen Dalsheim
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 18, 1981
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel respondents to expunge from petitioners institutional files all disciplinary records pertaining to a certain superintendents proceeding, petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 18, 1980, as, upon determining that the superintendents proceeding had been properly conducted, (1) upheld the superintendents determination (a) that petitioner had violated several institutional rules and (b) that he serve 48 days in special housing and (2) dismissed the petition. (Petitioner has already served the 48 days.) Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, and the respondents are directed to expunge from the petitioners institutional record all references to the superintendents proceeding; the petition is otherwise dismissed on the merits. The petitioner, an inmate of the Ossining Correctional Facility, was charged with, among other things, committing forgery in making a purchase from the prison commissary using another inmates name. He was found guilty of the charges after a superintendents proceeding. Thereafter, petitioner instituted this article 78 proceeding alleging that numerous constitutional and regulatory violations had been committed throughout the superintendents proceeding. Special Term dismissed the petition on the merits. We disagree. First, 7 NYCRR 253.3 (b) provides that an inmate facing disciplinary charges shall have the right to the assistance of an employee who "shall investigate any reasonable factual claim the inmate may make." Petitioner asserts that he asked respondent Engber, his employee assistant, to interview two inmate witnesses who were present in the commissary on the date the alleged forgery took place. The "Notice of Assistance" form filled out by Engber indicated that petitioner did not request that Engber interview any witnesses. The "Notice of Assistance" form is [81 A.D.2d 887 Page 888]
 "Matter Michael Hilton v. Stephen Dalsheim" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}