Harrington v. Prack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrington v. Prack

91 A.D.3d 1244, 936 N.Y.2d 923

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1244 (Harrington v. Prack) 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

Harrington v. Prack, 91 A.D.3d 1244, 936 N.Y.2d 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[1245]*1245We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Hamilton v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1614 [2011]; Matter of Malik v Bezio, 76 AD3d 1128,1128 [2010]). Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that the misbehavior report was fabricated presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Cooper v Prack, 85 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2011]). Furthermore, his assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased has not been preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it in his administrative appeal (see Matter of Britt v Fischer, 54 AD3d 1087 [2008]).

Peters, J.P, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, 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

[1245]*1245We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Hamilton v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1614 [2011]; Matter of Malik v Bezio, 76 AD3d 1128,1128 [2010]). Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that the misbehavior report was fabricated presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Cooper v Prack, 85 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2011]). Furthermore, his assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased has not been preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it in his administrative appeal (see Matter of Britt v Fischer, 54 AD3d 1087 [2008]).

Peters, J.P, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1244, 936 N.Y.2d 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-prack-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack