Justice v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Justice v. Henderson

69 A.D.2d 1017, 415 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11810

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

DecidedApril 13, 1979

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 1017 (Justice v. Henderson) 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

Justice v. Henderson, 69 A.D.2d 1017, 415 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We annul the disposition of the Superintendent of the Auburn Correctional Facility for the reasons stated in the memorandum and order at Special Term, Conable, J., Acting Supreme Court Justice, and hold that the hearing upon which the superintendent’s disposition was based was not conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Correctional [1018]*1018Services (7 NYCRR Part 253). We do not remit for a new hearing for the following reasons: A portion of the penalty imposed by the superintendent consisting of confinement in a special housing unit has already been served by petitioner-respondent. Further, the period of time that has elapsed since August, 1976, the date of the alleged acts of misconduct warranting the superintendent’s proceeding, underscores the difficulty of insuring a due process hearing to petitioner-respondent at this time. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We annul the disposition of the Superintendent of the Auburn Correctional Facility for the reasons stated in the memorandum and order at Special Term, Conable, J., Acting Supreme Court Justice, and hold that the hearing upon which the superintendent’s disposition was based was not conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Correctional [1018]*1018Services (7 NYCRR Part 253). We do not remit for a new hearing for the following reasons: A portion of the penalty imposed by the superintendent consisting of confinement in a special housing unit has already been served by petitioner-respondent. Further, the period of time that has elapsed since August, 1976, the date of the alleged acts of misconduct warranting the superintendent’s proceeding, underscores the difficulty of insuring a due process hearing to petitioner-respondent at this time. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 1017, 415 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justice-v-henderson-nyappdiv-1979.