Rahle v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rahle v. Johnson

247 A.D.2d 930, 668 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1305

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 930 (Rahle v. Johnson) 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

Rahle v. Johnson, 247 A.D.2d 930, 668 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Respondent concedes that the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating inmate rule 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]) must be vacated and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s record. The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.14 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [v]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Because the record imposes one penalty and fails to specify any relation between the charges and the penalty imposed, the penalty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the charge sustained (see, Matter of Ligreci v Honors, 171 AD2d 1058, Iv denied 78 NY2d 853). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Punch, J.)

Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Respondent concedes that the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating inmate rule 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]) must be vacated and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s record. The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.14 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [v]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Because the record imposes one penalty and fails to specify any relation between the charges and the penalty imposed, the penalty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the charge sustained (see, Matter of Ligreci v Honors, 171 AD2d 1058, Iv denied 78 NY2d 853). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Punch, J.)

Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 930, 668 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rahle-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack