Matter of Hughes v Bedard

Annotate this Case
Matter of Hughes v Bedard 2014 NY Slip Op 03557 Decided on May 15, 2014 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 15, 2014
516247

[*1]In the Matter of MICHAEL HUGHES, Appellant,

v

COREY BEDARD, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Calendar Date: April 2, 2014
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ.


Michael Hughes, Stormville, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany
(Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered January 16, 2013 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.

Following a tier III prison disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of drug use and violating family reunion program procedures. Upon administrative appeal, the determination was administratively reversed and a rehearing ordered due to an incomplete electronic recording of the hearing.
In cases such as this one, where the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision has yet to "issue[] a final determination, it is entirely proper for the Commissioner to order a rehearing upon his administrative review of an inmate disciplinary proceeding, even where an error sought to be corrected is of constitutional magnitude" (Matter of Stephens v Goord, 273 AD2d 656, 657 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 766 [2000]; see Matter of Higgins v Selsky, 27 AD3d 913, 914 [2006]). As we find no basis to conclude that a rehearing was improperly ordered, Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of Stephens v Goord, 273 AD2d at 657).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.