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

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 587 (Billups v. Artuz) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 587, 644 N.Y.2d 635, 644 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billups-v-artuz-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack