Lang v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lang v. Kelly

127 A.D.2d 978, 512 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43467

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 978 (Lang 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

Lang v. Kelly, 127 A.D.2d 978, 512 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously vacated on the law, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in failing to transfer this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which alleged that respondent’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7804 [g]). Moreover, contrary to the finding below, we conclude that there is substantial evidence, based on the written misbehavior report, to support respondent’s determination that petitioner disobeyed a direct order (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The essential issue at the hearing was credibility, and the Hearing Officer was entitled to credit the officer’s report. If petitioner wished to cross-examine the charging officer, he had the right to call the officer as a witness (Matter of Curl v Kelly, 125 AD2d 948). (Appeal from judgment of [979]*979Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously vacated on the law, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in failing to transfer this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which alleged that respondent’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7804 [g]). Moreover, contrary to the finding below, we conclude that there is substantial evidence, based on the written misbehavior report, to support respondent’s determination that petitioner disobeyed a direct order (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The essential issue at the hearing was credibility, and the Hearing Officer was entitled to credit the officer’s report. If petitioner wished to cross-examine the charging officer, he had the right to call the officer as a witness (Matter of Curl v Kelly, 125 AD2d 948). (Appeal from judgment of [979]*979Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 978, 512 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lang-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack