Melvin v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melvin v. Smith

143 A.D.2d 525, 533 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10702

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.D.2d 525 (Melvin v. Smith) 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

Melvin v. Smith, 143 A.D.2d 525, 533 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment vacated on the law, determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment which dismissed his CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of a Tier II disciplinary hearing that he violated two inmate rules. Since the issue raised is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence, Special Term should have transferred the matter to this court (CPLR 7804 [g]). The matter now being before us, however, we may decide the issue de novo (see, Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 111 AD2d 503). Petitioner’s admission to one of the charges and the correction officer’s misbehavior report with respect to the other constitute substantial evidence in support of the determination (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment vacated on the law, determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment which dismissed his CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of a Tier II disciplinary hearing that he violated two inmate rules. Since the issue raised is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence, Special Term should have transferred the matter to this court (CPLR 7804 [g]). The matter now being before us, however, we may decide the issue de novo (see, Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 111 AD2d 503). Petitioner’s admission to one of the charges and the correction officer’s misbehavior report with respect to the other constitute substantial evidence in support of the determination (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 525, 533 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-v-smith-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack