Matter of Manuel v. Griffin

2018 NY Slip Op 3367
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 9, 2018
Docket2016-11847
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 3367 (Matter of Manuel v. Griffin) 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 Manuel v. Griffin, 2018 NY Slip Op 3367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Matter of Manuel v Griffin (2018 NY Slip Op 03367)
Matter of Manuel v Griffin
2018 NY Slip Op 03367
Decided on May 9, 2018
Appellate Division, Second 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 May 9, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2016-11847
(Index No. 1300/16)

[*1]In the Matter of Barry Manuel, petitioner,

v

Thomas Griffin, etc., respondent.


Barry Manuel, Stormville, NY, petitioner pro se.

Barbara D. Underwood, Acting Attorney General, New York, NY (Andrew W. Amend and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility dated February 22, 2016, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated February 9, 2016, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating Institutional Rules of Conduct rules 106.10, 109.10, and 109.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][7][i]; [10][i], [iii]) 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 contentions, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony provided substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's determination that the petitioner violated the subject disciplinary rules (see Matter of Antrobus v Lee, 140 AD3d 745; Matter of Burgess v Bellnier, 138 AD3d 989; Matter of Jackson v Prack, 137 AD3d 1133; Matter of Mitchell v Fischer, 300 AD2d 491).

RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Matter of Jackson v. Prack
137 A.D.3d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Burgess v. Bellnier
138 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Antrobus v. Lee
140 A.D.3d 745 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Mitchell v. Fischer
300 A.D.2d 491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 3367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-manuel-v-griffin-nyappdiv-2018.