Burgess v. Bintz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgess v. Bintz

284 A.D.2d 687, 726 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6224

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

DecidedJune 14, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 687 (Burgess v. Bintz) 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

Burgess v. Bintz, 284 A.D.2d 687, 726 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating facility count procedures after he refused to rise from his bed during a “standing” count. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Ingram v Mann, 219 AD2d 743; Matter of Littles v Kirk, 168 AD2d 757, lv denied 77 NY2d 809). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

[688]*688Her cure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Mugglin 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 St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating facility count procedures after he refused to rise from his bed during a “standing” count. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Ingram v Mann, 219 AD2d 743; Matter of Littles v Kirk, 168 AD2d 757, lv denied 77 NY2d 809). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

[688]*688Her cure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged, that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 687, 726 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-bintz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack