Graham v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Graham v. Henderson

158 A.D.2d 911, 551 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1403

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer did not preside in an impartial manner or that [912]*912certain charges were filed in retaliation. We find that the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The remaining issues set forth in the petition and rejected by Supreme Court have not been raised on appeal, and thus those issues have been waived (see, Velte v Jainew Enters., 122 AD2d 544). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer did not preside in an impartial manner or that [912]*912certain charges were filed in retaliation. We find that the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The remaining issues set forth in the petition and rejected by Supreme Court have not been raised on appeal, and thus those issues have been waived (see, Velte v Jainew Enters., 122 AD2d 544). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Graham v. Henderson, 158 A.D.2d 911, 551 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

158 A.D.2d 911 (Graham v. Henderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related