Anekwe v. Ercole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anekwe v. Ercole

74 A.D.3d 1335, 903 N.Y.S.2d 253

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 29, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1335 (Anekwe v. Ercole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anekwe v. Ercole, 74 A.D.3d 1335, 903 N.Y.S.2d 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility dated November 20, 2008, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated September 19, 2008, made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the testimony of a correction officer, along with the misbehavior report, constituted substantial evidence of his guilt (see generally Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 45 AD3d 595 [2007]). Moreover, we find no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report violated 7 NYCRR 251-3.1, as it contained the necessary specificity to apprise the petitioner of the charges so as to enable him to prepare an adequate defense (see generally Matter of Winkler v Keane, 194 AD2d 544, 545 [1993]; Matter of Ross v Lord, 172 AD2d 527 [1991]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility dated November 20, 2008, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated September 19, 2008, made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the testimony of a correction officer, along with the misbehavior report, constituted substantial evidence of his guilt (see generally Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 45 AD3d 595 [2007]). Moreover, we find no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report violated 7 NYCRR 251-3.1, as it contained the necessary specificity to apprise the petitioner of the charges so as to enable him to prepare an adequate defense (see generally Matter of Winkler v Keane, 194 AD2d 544, 545 [1993]; Matter of Ross v Lord, 172 AD2d 527 [1991]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1335, 903 N.Y.S.2d 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anekwe-v-ercole-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack