Howard v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. Kelly

115 A.D.2d 1011, 497 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55411

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 1011 (Howard v. Kelly) 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

Howard v. Kelly, 115 A.D.2d 1011, 497 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner waived his right to challenge the legality of a Superintendent’s proceeding by refusing to attend the hearing (Matter of Payne v Smith, 97 AD2d 960; see also, Matter of Morrison v Coughlin, 101 AD2d 943, 944, lv denied 63 NY2d 605; People ex rel. Morgan v La Vallee, 49 AD2d 652, lv denied 37 NY2d 710). In any event, petitioner’s claim that a written misbehavior report did not constitute substantial evidence in support of the determination is without merit (see, Matter of Semper v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner waived his right to challenge the legality of a Superintendent’s proceeding by refusing to attend the hearing (Matter of Payne v Smith, 97 AD2d 960; see also, Matter of Morrison v Coughlin, 101 AD2d 943, 944, lv denied 63 NY2d 605; People ex rel. Morgan v La Vallee, 49 AD2d 652, lv denied 37 NY2d 710). In any event, petitioner’s claim that a written misbehavior report did not constitute substantial evidence in support of the determination is without merit (see, Matter of Semper v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 1011, 497 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack