Billups v. Artuz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Billups v. Artuz

228 A.D.2d 587, 644 N.Y.2d 635, 644 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7076

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Hearing Officer’s finding that the petitioner had violated prison rules which prohibited disobeying a direct order and lying or making incomplete, misleading, or false statements was supported by substantial evidence in the form of a written misbehavior report prepared by the Correction Officer who observed the incident and the hearing testimony of a prison employee who likewise witnessed the incident (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964).

The petitioner’s various claims of procedural error are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, Matter of Tate v Senkowski, 215 AD2d 903, 904) or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

The Hearing Officer’s finding that the petitioner had violated prison rules which prohibited disobeying a direct order and lying or making incomplete, misleading, or false statements was supported by substantial evidence in the form of a written misbehavior report prepared by the Correction Officer who observed the incident and the hearing testimony of a prison employee who likewise witnessed the incident (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964).

The petitioner’s various claims of procedural error are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, Matter of Tate v Senkowski, 215 AD2d 903, 904) or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Billups v. Artuz, 228 A.D.2d 587, 644 N.Y.2d 635, 644 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 587 (Billups v. Artuz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related