Chikeles v. LeFevre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chikeles v. LeFevre

183 A.D.2d 1081, 583 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7452

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

DecidedMay 21, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 1081 (Chikeles v. LeFevre) 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

Chikeles v. LeFevre, 183 A.D.2d 1081, 583 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Although petitioner was found guilty of violating several disciplinary rules, he challenges only the finding of guilt with respect to the charge of possessing or selling narcotics. The misbehavior report, written by an undercover investigator, [1082]*1082described with sufficient specificity the incident whereby petitioner placed a telephone call to the investigator and directed him to mail $250 to a certain address for which petitioner would get him 20 bags of heroin. This report, standing alone, constituted substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Bernacet v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 802, lv denied 74 NY2d 603; Matter of Curl v Kelly, 125 AD2d 948). In addition, the in camera testimony also supports the determination (see, Matter of Breland v Senkowski, 168 AD2d 751, 752). Petitioner’s denial of the charge raised questions of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hernandez v LeFevre, 150 AD2d 954, 955, lv denied 74 NY2d 615).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, 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 Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Although petitioner was found guilty of violating several disciplinary rules, he challenges only the finding of guilt with respect to the charge of possessing or selling narcotics. The misbehavior report, written by an undercover investigator, [1082]*1082described with sufficient specificity the incident whereby petitioner placed a telephone call to the investigator and directed him to mail $250 to a certain address for which petitioner would get him 20 bags of heroin. This report, standing alone, constituted substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Bernacet v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 802, lv denied 74 NY2d 603; Matter of Curl v Kelly, 125 AD2d 948). In addition, the in camera testimony also supports the determination (see, Matter of Breland v Senkowski, 168 AD2d 751, 752). Petitioner’s denial of the charge raised questions of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hernandez v LeFevre, 150 AD2d 954, 955, lv denied 74 NY2d 615).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 1081, 583 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chikeles-v-lefevre-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack