Conte v. Berry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conte v. Berry

198 A.D.2d 727, 605 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11016

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 727 (Conte v. Berry) 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

Conte v. Berry, 198 A.D.2d 727, 605 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Petitioner has failed to support his claim that there was a violation of 7 NYCRR 253.1 (b); the person who prepared the misbehavior report neither acted as a Hearing Officer nor does it appear that he took part in the deliberations. Furthermore, the misbehavior report provided substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner disobeyed a direct order and was out of place. We have examined petitioner’s remaining contention and find it lacking in merit.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mahoney and Casey, 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 Sullivan County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner has failed to support his claim that there was a violation of 7 NYCRR 253.1 (b); the person who prepared the misbehavior report neither acted as a Hearing Officer nor does it appear that he took part in the deliberations. Furthermore, the misbehavior report provided substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner disobeyed a direct order and was out of place. We have examined petitioner’s remaining contention and find it lacking in merit.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 727, 605 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conte-v-berry-nyappdiv-1993.