| Matter of Tafari v Fischer |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01909 [82 AD3d 1430] |
| March 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Sania W. Khan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Muller, J.), entered July 23, 2010 in ClintonCounty, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, toreview two determinations of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prisondisciplinary rules.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was served with a misbehavior report charging him with theviolation of various disciplinary rules after he wrote three letters to a female facility employeewhom he had been given direct orders not to contact. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, hewas found guilty of harassment and refusing a direct order and that determination was affirmedon administrative appeal. A second misbehavior report was served after petitioner wrote thatsame employee another letter and, following a separate tier III disciplinary hearing, he was foundguilty of harassment, refusing a direct order and stalking. That determination was also affirmedon administrative appeal, after which petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding tochallenge both determinations. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Hearing Officer adequately protected hisright to call witnesses, despite the failure to elicit a reason for his inmate witnesses' refusal totestify beyond a desire not to be involved (see Matter of Tafari v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2010], lvdenied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]; Matterof Hill v Selsky, 19 AD3d 64, 67 [2005]). We also conclude that, with regard to the firsthearing, the extensions were properly requested and granted to permit petitioner to receiveassistance or to attempt to secure the [*2]testimony of hiswitnesses, and the hearing was completed within the time limits required (see Matter of Sierrav Dubray, 58 AD3d 970, 970 [2009]; Matter of Mackie v Goord, 49 AD3d 952, 953 [2008]). The factthat one request for an extension was made after a previous extension had expired does notrender it invalid (see Matter ofThompson v Votraw, 65 AD3d 1403, 1404-1405 [2009]; Matter of Porter v Goord, 6 AD3d1013, 1014 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 602 [2004]). Petitioner's remainingcontentions are not properly before us.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.