| Matter of Davila v Selsky |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01043 [48 AD3d 846] |
| February 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Paul Davila, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, asDirector of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered November 15, 2006in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services findingpetitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging adetermination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting thepossession of weapons. Finding no merit to petitioner's procedural claims, Supreme Courtdismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
Petitioner first claims that he was denied adequate employee assistance because his assistantmade no effort to locate and interview certain witnesses. However, petitioner was unable toprovide any information to help identify specific witnesses, and instead requested that everyinmate on his housing company be interviewed. The Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing andattempted to locate a "go-around" sheet that could have identified inmates who witnessed theincident, but discovered that such sheet was missing from the facility's records. Under thesecircumstances, we find that reasonable efforts were made to locate petitioner's witnesses (see Matter of Callender v Selsky, 41AD3d 1065, 1066 [2007]; Matter ofFolk v [*2]Goord, 29 AD3d 1182 [2006]). Moreover, theHearing Officer's efforts remedied any prehearing deficiencies in the employee assistance (see Matter of Blackwell v Goord, 5AD3d 883 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 708 [2004]).
Finally, inasmuch as petitioner failed to object at the hearing to the alleged denial of his rightto call his correction counselor as a witness, such claim is unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Carter v Goord, 45 AD3d1077, 1078 [2007]; Matter ofNewsome v Selsky, 26 AD3d 565, 566 [2006]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, tothe extent preserved, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed, without costs.