Gittens v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gittens v. Sullivan

175 A.D.2d 286

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.D.2d 286 (Gittens v. Sullivan) 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

Gittens v. Sullivan, 175 A.D.2d 286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, dated June 8, 1987, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner to be in violation of an institutional rule and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Following a Tier II disciplinary hearing, it was determined that the petitioner had made a threatening gesture towards a Correction Officer, in violation of inmate rule 102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [3]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record establishes that the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130), and accordingly, it is confirmed.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Hooper, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, dated June 8, 1987, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner to be in violation of an institutional rule and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Following a Tier II disciplinary hearing, it was determined that the petitioner had made a threatening gesture towards a Correction Officer, in violation of inmate rule 102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [3]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record establishes that the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130), and accordingly, it is confirmed.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Hooper, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gittens-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack