Fardan v. Kuhlmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fardan v. Kuhlmann

212 A.D.2d 920, 623 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1612

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 920 (Fardan v. Kuhlmann) 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

Fardan v. Kuhlmann, 212 A.D.2d 920, 623 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered April 11, 1994 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action.

Petitioner was found guilty after a tier II hearing of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the refusal to obey a direct order of correctional facility personnel. As found by Supreme Court, petitioner’s contention that he did not have to obey the order at issue because it was contrary to State directives and facility policy, and was given in excess of authority, is meritless. The petition was therefore properly dismissed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered April 11, 1994 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action.

Petitioner was found guilty after a tier II hearing of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the refusal to obey a direct order of correctional facility personnel. As found by Supreme Court, petitioner’s contention that he did not have to obey the order at issue because it was contrary to State directives and facility policy, and was given in excess of authority, is meritless. The petition was therefore properly dismissed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 920, 623 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fardan-v-kuhlmann-nyappdiv-1995.