Grant v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Riley

204 A.D.2d 545, 614 N.Y.S.2d 197

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

DecidedMay 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 545 (Grant v. Riley) 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

Grant v. Riley, 204 A.D.2d 545, 614 N.Y.S.2d 197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Fishkill Correctional Facility, dated June 24, 1991, affirming the Hearing Officer’s finding that the petitioner violated New York State Department of Correction rule 107.11 against "verbal abuse of staff members”, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated September 16, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing (see, CPLR 7803 [4]). The petitioner’s [546]*546challenge to the facial constitutionality of the regulation in question is without merit (see, Turner v Safley, 482 US 78, 89). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Fishkill Correctional Facility, dated June 24, 1991, affirming the Hearing Officer’s finding that the petitioner violated New York State Department of Correction rule 107.11 against "verbal abuse of staff members”, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated September 16, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing (see, CPLR 7803 [4]). The petitioner’s [546]*546challenge to the facial constitutionality of the regulation in question is without merit (see, Turner v Safley, 482 US 78, 89). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 545, 614 N.Y.S.2d 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-riley-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack