Gayle v. Bigness

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gayle v. Bigness

207 A.D.2d 940, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8969

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gayle v. Bigness. Read the opinion of the Court — 220 A.D.2d 939 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 22, 1994·Published

Opinion

—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 respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, substantial evidence supports the finding that he was guilty of providing unauthorized legal assistance. The evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing included the misbehavior report written by the correction officer stating that he observed petitioner type legal work and pass it to another inmate. The legal work was attached to the report. Petitioner’s protestations of innocence presented questions of credibility which were for the Hearing Officer to resolve. Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive or unpreserved for review.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Weiss, 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 Franklin County) to review a determination of respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, substantial evidence supports the finding that he was guilty of providing unauthorized legal assistance. The evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing included the misbehavior report written by the correction officer stating that he observed petitioner type legal work and pass it to another inmate. The legal work was attached to the report. Petitioner’s protestations of innocence presented questions of credibility which were for the Hearing Officer to resolve. Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive or unpreserved for review.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Gayle v. Bigness, 207 A.D.2d 940, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

207 A.D.2d 940 (Gayle v. Bigness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.