Hendrix v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hendrix v. Williams

256 A.D.2d 1117, 684 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14217

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1117 (Hendrix v. Williams) 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

Hendrix v. Williams, 256 A.D.2d 1117, 684 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [ii]) is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s receipt of correspondence from another inmate’s aunt does not violate any of the policies and procedures governing the inmate correspondence program (see, 7 NYCRR part 720; cf., Matter of Montgomery v Jones, 88 AD2d 1003). Substantial evidence is also lacking to support the determination that petitioner violáted inmate rule 180.17 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [vii]). Petitioner’s possession of legal documents belonging to another inmate, without more, does not establish that petitioner provided unauthorized legal assistance to another inmate (cf., Matter of Tate v Senkowski, 215 AD2d 903, 904, lv denied 86 NY2d 708; Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 210 AD2d 543, 544). We therefore grant the petition, annul the determination and direct that all references thereto be expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie [1118]*1118County, Burns, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [ii]) is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s receipt of correspondence from another inmate’s aunt does not violate any of the policies and procedures governing the inmate correspondence program (see, 7 NYCRR part 720; cf., Matter of Montgomery v Jones, 88 AD2d 1003). Substantial evidence is also lacking to support the determination that petitioner violáted inmate rule 180.17 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [vii]). Petitioner’s possession of legal documents belonging to another inmate, without more, does not establish that petitioner provided unauthorized legal assistance to another inmate (cf., Matter of Tate v Senkowski, 215 AD2d 903, 904, lv denied 86 NY2d 708; Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 210 AD2d 543, 544). We therefore grant the petition, annul the determination and direct that all references thereto be expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie [1118]*1118County, Burns, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1117, 684 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrix-v-williams-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack