Mabry v. E. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mabry v. E. Maddox

57 A.D.3d 1000, 869 N.Y.2d 789

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1000 (Mabry v. E. Maddox) 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

Mabry v. E. Maddox, 57 A.D.3d 1000, 869 N.Y.2d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The determination of the Hearing Officer was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Reyes v Goord, 49 AD3d 546 [2008]; Matter of Igartua v Selsky, 41 AD3d 717 [2007]). There is no evidence in this record that the petitioner was denied her right to call witnesses or otherwise deprived of due process of law.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

The determination of the Hearing Officer was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Reyes v Goord, 49 AD3d 546 [2008]; Matter of Igartua v Selsky, 41 AD3d 717 [2007]). There is no evidence in this record that the petitioner was denied her right to call witnesses or otherwise deprived of due process of law.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1000, 869 N.Y.2d 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mabry-v-e-maddox-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack