Brisbane v. New York State Department of Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brisbane v. New York State Department of Correction

65 A.D.2d 811, 411 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13699

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 811 (Brisbane v. New York State Department of Correction) 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

Brisbane v. New York State Department of Correction, 65 A.D.2d 811, 411 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent which, inter alia, found that the petitioner had been guilty of violating certain prison rules, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 3, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Review of the record indicates that respondent’s determination was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor in violation of the lawful procedures of 7 NYCRR Part 252 (cf. Matter of Amato v Ward, 41 NY2d 469). Latham, J. P., Titone, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent which, inter alia, found that the petitioner had been guilty of violating certain prison rules, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 3, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Review of the record indicates that respondent’s determination was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor in violation of the lawful procedures of 7 NYCRR Part 252 (cf. Matter of Amato v Ward, 41 NY2d 469). Latham, J. P., Titone, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 811, 411 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brisbane-v-new-york-state-department-of-correction-nyappdiv-1978.