Phillips v. Krempasky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phillips v. Krempasky

244 A.D.2d 976, 668 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12402

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 976 (Phillips v. Krempasky) 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

Phillips v. Krempasky, 244 A.D.2d 976, 668 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii] [use of controlled substance]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contentions that the Hearing Officer was not impartial and that the outcome of the hearing was based upon that lack of impartiality are not supported by the record (see, Matter of Dawes v Selsky, 242 AD2d 907; Matter of McCoy v Leonardo, 175 AD2d 358, 359). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii] [use of controlled substance]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contentions that the Hearing Officer was not impartial and that the outcome of the hearing was based upon that lack of impartiality are not supported by the record (see, Matter of Dawes v Selsky, 242 AD2d 907; Matter of McCoy v Leonardo, 175 AD2d 358, 359). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 976, 668 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-krempasky-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack