Lewis v. Connolly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Connolly

44 A.D.3d 665, 841 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 665 (Lewis v. Connolly) 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

Lewis v. Connolly, 44 A.D.3d 665, 841 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated March 23, 2006, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated February 9, 2006, made after a Tier II Superintendent Hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rule 116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [i]), and imposing penalties.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he violated prison disciplinary rule 116.10 was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Igartua v Selsky, 41 AD3d 717 [2007]; Matter of Costantino v Goord, 38 AD3d 657, 658 [2007]; Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky, 36 AD3d 907 [2007]). Credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the determination (see Matter of Gilzene v McGinnis, 300 AD2d 658, 659 [2002]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated March 23, 2006, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated February 9, 2006, made after a Tier II Superintendent Hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rule 116.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [i]), and imposing penalties.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he violated prison disciplinary rule 116.10 was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Igartua v Selsky, 41 AD3d 717 [2007]; Matter of Costantino v Goord, 38 AD3d 657, 658 [2007]; Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky, 36 AD3d 907 [2007]). Credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the determination (see Matter of Gilzene v McGinnis, 300 AD2d 658, 659 [2002]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 665, 841 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-connolly-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack