Mercedes v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mercedes v. Senkowski

163 A.D.2d 705, 559 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 A.D.2d 705 (Mercedes v. Senkowski) 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

Mercedes v. Senkowski, 163 A.D.2d 705, 559 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered April 21, 1989 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was confined at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County and charged with the use of a controlled substance in violation of State-wide rule 113.12 (see, 7 NYCRR former 270.1 [b] [14] [iv]). He was found guilty following a [706]*706disciplinary hearing and was unsuccessful on administrative appeal. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

Petitioner claims that the determination should be annulled because EMIT control test result cards were not produced in violation of 7 NYCRR 1020.4 (e) (1) (iv) and 1020.5 (a) (1). Petitioner’s failure to raise this issue at the administrative level precludes its consideration now (see, e.g., Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, lv denied 75 NY2d 705). In any event, we recently have resolved petitioner’s contentions contrary to his position (see, Matter of Sweet v Coughlin, 161 AD2d 1005).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered April 21, 1989 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was confined at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County and charged with the use of a controlled substance in violation of State-wide rule 113.12 (see, 7 NYCRR former 270.1 [b] [14] [iv]). He was found guilty following a [706]*706disciplinary hearing and was unsuccessful on administrative appeal. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

Petitioner claims that the determination should be annulled because EMIT control test result cards were not produced in violation of 7 NYCRR 1020.4 (e) (1) (iv) and 1020.5 (a) (1). Petitioner’s failure to raise this issue at the administrative level precludes its consideration now (see, e.g., Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, lv denied 75 NY2d 705). In any event, we recently have resolved petitioner’s contentions contrary to his position (see, Matter of Sweet v Coughlin, 161 AD2d 1005).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 705, 559 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercedes-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack