Richardson v. Lacy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richardson v. Lacy

239 A.D.2d 644, 657 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511

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

DecidedMay 1, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 644 (Richardson v. Lacy) 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

Richardson v. Lacy, 239 A.D.2d 644, 657 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

While an inmate at Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Franklin County, petitioner was observed tampering with a sandwich machine, which he was prohibited from using, located in a facility break room. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of tampering with State property. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this administrative determination on the basis that it is not supported by substantial evidence.

We disagree. The author of the misbehavior report testified at the disciplinary hearing that he heard the sandwich machine operating and, when he looked into the break room, he saw petitioner standing in front of the machine pushing the [645]*645buttons. Although petitioner initially denied touching the machine, he later admitted that he was present in the break room in front of the machine and may have hit the buttons by mistake. In our view, this constitutes substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination of guilt (see, Matter of Jackson v Dufrain, 221 AD2d 778).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs and petition dismissed.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

While an inmate at Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Franklin County, petitioner was observed tampering with a sandwich machine, which he was prohibited from using, located in a facility break room. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of tampering with State property. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this administrative determination on the basis that it is not supported by substantial evidence.

We disagree. The author of the misbehavior report testified at the disciplinary hearing that he heard the sandwich machine operating and, when he looked into the break room, he saw petitioner standing in front of the machine pushing the [645]*645buttons. Although petitioner initially denied touching the machine, he later admitted that he was present in the break room in front of the machine and may have hit the buttons by mistake. In our view, this constitutes substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination of guilt (see, Matter of Jackson v Dufrain, 221 AD2d 778).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 644, 657 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-lacy-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack