Delgado v. Hurlburt

279 A.D.2d 734, 718 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 250
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 11, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 734 (Delgado v. Hurlburt) 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
Delgado v. Hurlburt, 279 A.D.2d 734, 718 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Crew III, J.

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

In May 1999, during a suspicion-based search of petitioner’s cell, a correction officer discovered several pieces of paper containing, inter alia, sets or groups of numbers, a numerical code representing letters of the alphabet and an address frequently used by inmates to purchase drugs. Application of the numerical code to the groups of numbers revealed a list of inmate names and corresponding dollar amounts. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of solicitation, extortion, possessing contraband, attempting to smuggle drugs and conspiracy to introduce drugs into the facility. Upon administrative appeal, the solicitation and extortion charges were dismissed and the penalty imposed modified. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, subsequently transferred to this Court, challenging the determination of his guilt.

As a starting point, respondents concede in their brief that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of conspiracy. Accordingly, the underlying determination is annulled to such extent and our inquiry, insofar as it relates to the issue of [735]*735substantial evidence, will be confined to the contraband and attempt to smuggle charges.

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

Related

STEWART, RANDLOPH v. FISCHER, BRIAN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Stewart v. Fischer
109 A.D.3d 1122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
RODRIGUEZ, ALBERTO v. FISCHER, BRIAN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Rodriguez v. Fischer
96 A.D.3d 1374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Searles v. Goord
32 A.D.3d 1075 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Blazic v. Walsh
300 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Taylor v. Poole
297 A.D.2d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
La Banca v. Goord
297 A.D.2d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sartori v. Selsky
297 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Vasquez v. Goord
284 A.D.2d 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Castaldo v. Goord
283 A.D.2d 838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D.2d 734, 718 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delgado-v-hurlburt-nyappdiv-2001.