Majority
—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner ap
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner contends that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because his counsel was unable to conduct a complete and thorough cross-examination of the complaining witness at his parole revocation hearing. The petitioner was not denied his right to cross-examination (cf Matter of Zuttah v Wing, 243 AD2d 765 ; Schwartz v 38 Town Assoc., 187 AD2d 377 ), and his “allegations of unfairness are insufficient to rebut the presumption of integrity of those serving as adjudicators” (Matter of Maher v Hayduk, 218 AD2d 700 , 701). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied habeas corpus relief. Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Adams, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Zuttah v. Wing 243 AD2d 765 p. 383