Mitchell v. Phillips

268 A.D.2d 633, 700 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 118
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 6, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 633 (Mitchell v. Phillips) 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
Mitchell v. Phillips, 268 A.D.2d 633, 700 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges the determination finding him guilty of smuggling and violating facility correspondence procedures. The charges stemmed from an investigation conducted by a correction officer who discovered that petitioner was sending mail containing money to a third party and then having it sent on to another inmate. Petitioner’s claim that the misbehavior report erroneously stated the wrong date is without merit. Because the misbehavior report contained adequate detail to provide petitioner with notice of the charge against him, we conclude that the minor date discrepancy was a harmless technical defect (see, Matter of Alvarado v Goord, 252 AD2d 650). Finally, the misbehavior report, documentary evidence and hearing testimony, combined with the inferences that can be drawn therefrom (see, Matter of Phillips v Goord, 252 AD2d 642), provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Rivera v Coombe, 231 AD2d 790).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Related

COLON, RIVAS v. FISCHER, BRIAN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Colon v. Fischer
83 A.D.3d 1500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Carini v. Selsky
19 A.D.3d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Carter v. Goord
303 A.D.2d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Jackson v. Portuondo
287 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Camacho v. Goord
284 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Delgado v. Hurlburt
279 A.D.2d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Lashway v. Kuhlmann
278 A.D.2d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 633, 700 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-phillips-nyappdiv-2000.