Ojeda v. Venettozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ojeda v. Venettozzi

99 A.D.3d 914, 952 N.Y.2d 274

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 99 A.D.3d 914 (Ojeda v. Venettozzi) 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

Ojeda v. Venettozzi, 99 A.D.3d 914, 952 N.Y.2d 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In reaching his determination that the petitioner violated prison disciplinary rule 113.10 (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]) by possessing a weapon, the respondent relied upon a misbehavior report as well as the testimony of the correction officer who discovered the weapon following a search of the petitioner’s cell, and the testimony of the petitioner himself. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, this constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charge sustained against him (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123 [1995]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884 [2008]). Any credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the hearing officer’s determination (see Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d at 885).

[915]*915The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In reaching his determination that the petitioner violated prison disciplinary rule 113.10 (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]) by possessing a weapon, the respondent relied upon a misbehavior report as well as the testimony of the correction officer who discovered the weapon following a search of the petitioner’s cell, and the testimony of the petitioner himself. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, this constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charge sustained against him (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123 [1995]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884 [2008]). Any credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the hearing officer’s determination (see Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d at 885).

[915]*915The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 914, 952 N.Y.2d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ojeda-v-venettozzi-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack