Ramos v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramos v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

62 A.D.3d 1174, 878 N.Y.S.2d 638

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

DecidedMay 21, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 1174 (Ramos v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) 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

Ramos v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 62 A.D.3d 1174, 878 N.Y.S.2d 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered April 22, 2008 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for a merit time allowance.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination that he was ineligible to receive a merit time allowance. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

Pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (iv), a merit time al[1175]*1175lowance shall be withheld for “any serious disciplinary infraction.” A serious disciplinary infraction is further defined by 7 NYCRR 280.2 (b) (2) as, among other things, drug use as defined by 7 NYCRR 270.2 (B) (14) (xiv), also denominated “Rule 113.24” (see People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 947 [2007], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 927 [2007]). Here, it is undisputed that petitioner was found guilty of violating rule 113.24 while incarcerated. As such, we find that Supreme Court did not err in upholding respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s request for a merit time allowance.

We have examined petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered April 22, 2008 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for a merit time allowance.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination that he was ineligible to receive a merit time allowance. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

Pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (iv), a merit time al[1175]*1175lowance shall be withheld for “any serious disciplinary infraction.” A serious disciplinary infraction is further defined by 7 NYCRR 280.2 (b) (2) as, among other things, drug use as defined by 7 NYCRR 270.2 (B) (14) (xiv), also denominated “Rule 113.24” (see People v Sanders, 36 AD3d 944, 947 [2007], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 927 [2007]). Here, it is undisputed that petitioner was found guilty of violating rule 113.24 while incarcerated. As such, we find that Supreme Court did not err in upholding respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s request for a merit time allowance.

We have examined petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 1174, 878 N.Y.S.2d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack