Ingram v. Mann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ingram v. Mann

219 A.D.2d 743, 631 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9172

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

DecidedSeptember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 743 (Ingram v. Mann) 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

Ingram v. Mann, 219 A.D.2d 743, 631 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As the result of an incident in which petitioner failed to terminate a telephone call and return to his cell before it was locked, petitioner was found guilty of being out of place and violating count procedures. He contends that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We disagree. The evidence against petitioner consisted of a misbehavior report authored by a correction officer who witnessed the incident. This, coupled with petitioner’s admission that he did not arrive at his cell until after the doors had [744]*744been locked, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As the result of an incident in which petitioner failed to terminate a telephone call and return to his cell before it was locked, petitioner was found guilty of being out of place and violating count procedures. He contends that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We disagree. The evidence against petitioner consisted of a misbehavior report authored by a correction officer who witnessed the incident. This, coupled with petitioner’s admission that he did not arrive at his cell until after the doors had [744]*744been locked, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 743, 631 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-mann-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack