Payne v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Payne v. Senkowski

140 A.D.2d 856, 528 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5339

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

DecidedMay 19, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.2d 856 (Payne v. Senkowski) 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

Payne v. Senkowski, 140 A.D.2d 856, 528 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Kane, J.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, was found guilty of defacing his newly painted cell in the special housing unit in violation of the rules for inmate behavior (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [17] [i]) and assessed a penalty of 15 days’ cell confinement and loss of certain privileges. His administrative appeal was denied be[857]*857cause he failed to specify particular violations of due process rights or procedural requirements. As a result, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was transferred to this court.

The record demonstrates compliance with all procedural requirements. Petitioner received notice, investigative assistance and an opportunity to prepare for and defend the charges against him. A hearing was conducted before a fair and impartial Hearing Officer whose determination was founded upon the requisite substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; Matter of Gonzalez v Coughlin, 126 AD2d 800). Therefore, the determination should be confirmed.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

— Kane, J.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, was found guilty of defacing his newly painted cell in the special housing unit in violation of the rules for inmate behavior (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [17] [i]) and assessed a penalty of 15 days’ cell confinement and loss of certain privileges. His administrative appeal was denied be[857]*857cause he failed to specify particular violations of due process rights or procedural requirements. As a result, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was transferred to this court.

The record demonstrates compliance with all procedural requirements. Petitioner received notice, investigative assistance and an opportunity to prepare for and defend the charges against him. A hearing was conducted before a fair and impartial Hearing Officer whose determination was founded upon the requisite substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; Matter of Gonzalez v Coughlin, 126 AD2d 800). Therefore, the determination should be confirmed.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 856, 528 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack