Brown v. Keating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Keating

309 A.D.2d 1106, 766 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11249

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1106 (Brown v. Keating) 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

Brown v. Keating, 309 A.D.2d 1106, 766 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Rensselaer County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Rensselaer County Cor[1107]*1107rectional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a correctional facility disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the correctional facility disciplinary rule which prohibits menacing. The charges stem from petitioner’s threatening statements to a correction officer. We reject petitioner’s contention that because he was confined to his cell at the time of the incident, the statements could not be construed as menacing. The statements made were clearly meant to threaten the correction officer. Petitioner’s reliance on the definition of menacing as contained in Penal Law § 120.15 is misplaced inasmuch as he was charged with a disciplinary rule infraction and not a criminal offense. To the extent that petitioner challenges the resulting order that physical restraints be used when he is removed from his cell as being retaliatory in nature, given his threatening conduct we find his contention to be without merit (see 7 NYCRR 250.2 [h]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Rensselaer County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Rensselaer County Cor[1107]*1107rectional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a correctional facility disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the correctional facility disciplinary rule which prohibits menacing. The charges stem from petitioner’s threatening statements to a correction officer. We reject petitioner’s contention that because he was confined to his cell at the time of the incident, the statements could not be construed as menacing. The statements made were clearly meant to threaten the correction officer. Petitioner’s reliance on the definition of menacing as contained in Penal Law § 120.15 is misplaced inasmuch as he was charged with a disciplinary rule infraction and not a criminal offense. To the extent that petitioner challenges the resulting order that physical restraints be used when he is removed from his cell as being retaliatory in nature, given his threatening conduct we find his contention to be without merit (see 7 NYCRR 250.2 [h]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1106, 766 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-keating-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack