Matter of Johnson v. Eckert

2022 NY Slip Op 04512
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 8, 2022
Docket574 TP 22-00179
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 NY Slip Op 04512 (Matter of Johnson v. Eckert) 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
Matter of Johnson v. Eckert, 2022 NY Slip Op 04512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Matter of Johnson v Eckert (2022 NY Slip Op 04512)
Matter of Johnson v Eckert
2022 NY Slip Op 04512
Decided on July 8, 2022
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on July 8, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

574 TP 22-00179

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF LEROY JOHNSON, PETITIONER,

v

STEWART T. ECKERT, SUPERINTENDENT, WENDE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.


LEROY JOHNSON, PETITIONER PRO SE.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [M. William Boller, A.J.], entered November 16, 2021) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier II hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul a determination, following a tier II disciplinary hearing, that he violated certain inmate rules. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior reports constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that he violated the subject inmate rules (see Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617 [1986]; Matter of Murphy v Graham, 98 AD3d 833, 834-835 [4th Dept 2012]). Petitioner's testimony merely presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]).

Entered: July 8, 2022

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Perez v. Wilmot
490 N.E.2d 526 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Foster v. Coughlin
565 N.E.2d 477 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
Murphy v. Graham
98 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 NY Slip Op 04512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-johnson-v-eckert-nyappdiv-2022.