Ramsey v. Phillips

11 A.D.3d 470, 782 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 4, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 470 (Ramsey v. Phillips) 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
Ramsey v. Phillips, 11 A.D.3d 470, 782 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, dated August 19, 2003, which affirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer dated July 28, 2003, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating prison rules and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“In reviewing a prison disciplinary determination, the court’s inquiry is limited to deciding whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Glover v Goord, 262 AD2d 483, 484 [1999]; see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130 [1985]). “[Substantial evidence ‘means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact’ ” (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, supra at 139, quoting 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Here, a review of the record reveals that there was substantial evidence to support the respondent’s determination that the petitioner violated prison rules (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964 [1990]; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615 [1986]; see also, Matter of McIntosh v Coughlin, 155 AD2d 762 [1989]). Accord[471]*471ingly, we confirm the determination. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Vaughn v. Orlando
79 A.D.3d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Reyes v. Leclaire
49 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Reyes v. Goord
49 A.D.3d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Blanco v. Selsky
45 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Adamson v. Barto
37 A.D.3d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
De La Cruz v. Selsky
36 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Royster v. Goord
26 A.D.3d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Cromwell v. Goord
19 A.D.3d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Wheeler v. Commissioner of New York State Correctional Services
17 A.D.3d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.D.3d 470, 782 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsey-v-phillips-nyappdiv-2004.