Peterkin v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterkin v. Reid

105 A.D.2d 707, 481 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20813

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 707 (Peterkin v. Reid) 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

Peterkin v. Reid, 105 A.D.2d 707, 481 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent finding that petitioner forcibly sodomized another inmate and imposing a penalty therefor, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated November 3, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although isolated parts of the transcript of petitioner’s hearing were unintelligible, the record was adequate and capable of review. The determination of respondent was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Brown, 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 respondent finding that petitioner forcibly sodomized another inmate and imposing a penalty therefor, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated November 3, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although isolated parts of the transcript of petitioner’s hearing were unintelligible, the record was adequate and capable of review. The determination of respondent was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 707, 481 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterkin-v-reid-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack