Nashid v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nashid v. Goord

306 A.D.2d 485, 761 N.Y.S.2d 519

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 485 (Nashid v. Goord) 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

Nashid v. Goord, 306 A.D.2d 485, 761 N.Y.S.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated June 26, 2001, which confirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer dated May 14, 2001, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is [486]*486denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination finding him guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]; cf. Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647 [1991]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated June 26, 2001, which confirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer dated May 14, 2001, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is [486]*486denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination finding him guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]; cf. Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647 [1991]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 485, 761 N.Y.S.2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nashid-v-goord-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack