Padilla v. Artuz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padilla v. Artuz

245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13232

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 520 (Padilla v. Artuz) 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

Padilla v. Artuz, 245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Hearing Officer after a Tier II disciplinary hearing held on September 18, 1995, which was affirmed October 6, 1995, by the Deputy Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, which found the petitioner guilty of violating institutional rules and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the hearing evidence provided substantial evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of possession of a weapon and possession of an altered item (see, CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, 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 a Hearing Officer after a Tier II disciplinary hearing held on September 18, 1995, which was affirmed October 6, 1995, by the Deputy Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, which found the petitioner guilty of violating institutional rules and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the hearing evidence provided substantial evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of possession of a weapon and possession of an altered item (see, CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 520, 666 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padilla-v-artuz-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack