Joyner v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joyner v. Smith

143 A.D.2d 522, 532 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10670

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 522 (Joyner v. Smith) 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

Joyner v. Smith, 143 A.D.2d 522, 532 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment vacated on the law and determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his CPLR article 78 petition to annul a determination made following a Tier II prison disciplinary hearing. It was determined that petitioner violated an inmate rule (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [2] [i]). Since the issue raised by the petition is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence, Special Term should have transferred the case to this court rather than reaching the issue itself (CPLR 7804 [g]). The matter having reached this court, however, we may treat it as though it had been properly transferred and dispose of the issue de novo (see, Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 111 AD2d 503; Matter of Kincaide v Coughlin, 86 AD2d 893). The misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Samuels v Kelly, 125 AD2d 1009). Issues of credibility are for the Hearing Officer to resolve (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment vacated on the law and determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his CPLR article 78 petition to annul a determination made following a Tier II prison disciplinary hearing. It was determined that petitioner violated an inmate rule (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [2] [i]). Since the issue raised by the petition is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence, Special Term should have transferred the case to this court rather than reaching the issue itself (CPLR 7804 [g]). The matter having reached this court, however, we may treat it as though it had been properly transferred and dispose of the issue de novo (see, Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 111 AD2d 503; Matter of Kincaide v Coughlin, 86 AD2d 893). The misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Samuels v Kelly, 125 AD2d 1009). Issues of credibility are for the Hearing Officer to resolve (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 522, 532 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyner-v-smith-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack