Keener v. Herbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keener v. Herbert

267 A.D.2d 1006, 700 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13748

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1006 (Keener v. Herbert) 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

Keener v. Herbert, 267 A.D.2d 1006, 700 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was found guilty following a Tier II hearing of violating inmate rule 102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [3] [i] [making threats]). At the hearing, petitioner admitted making a statement to the author of the misbehavior report, but denied that the statement was a threat. The statement repeated in the misbehavior report constitutes a threat, and thus there is substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The remaining contentions of petitioner were not raised on administrative appeal. Petitioner thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and we have no discretionary power to reach those contentions (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was found guilty following a Tier II hearing of violating inmate rule 102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [3] [i] [making threats]). At the hearing, petitioner admitted making a statement to the author of the misbehavior report, but denied that the statement was a threat. The statement repeated in the misbehavior report constitutes a threat, and thus there is substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The remaining contentions of petitioner were not raised on administrative appeal. Petitioner thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and we have no discretionary power to reach those contentions (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1006, 700 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keener-v-herbert-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack