Patino v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patino v. Scully

135 A.D.2d 637, 522 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52571

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 14, 1987·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the respondents, dated May 27, 1986, finding that he violated an institutional rule and imposing a penalty, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Patsalos, J.), dated October 28, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner violated a State and institutional rule prohibiting the refusal to obey a direct order (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130).

Further, since the petitioner never claimed during the administrative proceedings that he had not received a copy of the State rule book, that claim cannot be judicially reviewed (see, Matter of Klapak v Blum, 65 NY2d 670; Matter of Photo Medic Equip. v Suffolk County Dept. of Health Servs., 122 AD2d 882). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the respondents, dated May 27, 1986, finding that he violated an institutional rule and imposing a penalty, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Patsalos, J.), dated October 28, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner violated a State and institutional rule prohibiting the refusal to obey a direct order (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130).

Further, since the petitioner never claimed during the administrative proceedings that he had not received a copy of the State rule book, that claim cannot be judicially reviewed (see, Matter of Klapak v Blum, 65 NY2d 670; Matter of Photo Medic Equip. v Suffolk County Dept. of Health Servs., 122 AD2d 882). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Patino v. Scully, 135 A.D.2d 637, 522 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

135 A.D.2d 637 (Patino v. Scully) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related