Lowrance v. Malone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lowrance v. Malone

177 A.D.2d 761, 575 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14261

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 761 (Lowrance v. Malone) 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

Lowrance v. Malone, 177 A.D.2d 761, 575 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered March 6, 1991 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent designating petitioner as a central monitoring case.

We reject petitioner’s contention that his designation as a central monitoring case was arbitrary and capricious. Adequate and sufficient reasons were set forth for his designation (see, People ex rel. Williams v Ward, 73 AD2d 941). Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s contention, such a designation does not preclude him from participating in programs available to other prisoners (see, Matter of Ramirez v Ward, 64 AD2d 995). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition by Supreme Court must be upheld.

Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered March 6, 1991 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent designating petitioner as a central monitoring case.

We reject petitioner’s contention that his designation as a central monitoring case was arbitrary and capricious. Adequate and sufficient reasons were set forth for his designation (see, People ex rel. Williams v Ward, 73 AD2d 941). Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s contention, such a designation does not preclude him from participating in programs available to other prisoners (see, Matter of Ramirez v Ward, 64 AD2d 995). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition by Supreme Court must be upheld.

Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 761, 575 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowrance-v-malone-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack