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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 1984·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

105 A.D.2d 707 (Peterkin v. Reid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related