Rivera v. Greene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Greene

21 A.D.3d 1167, 800 N.Y.S.2d 791

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1167 (Rivera v. Greene) 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

Rivera v. Greene, 21 A.D.3d 1167, 800 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of obstructing the view into his cell in violation of a prison disciplinary rule. That determination was upheld on administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge it.

[1168]*1168Inasmuch as substantial evidence was presented at the disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and petitioner’s testimony, during which he conceded that he had hung a sheet from the bars of his cell as charged in the misbehavior report, we find no basis upon which to disturb the administrative determination (see Matter of Abdul-Malik v Keesler, 288 AD2d 738, 738-739 [2001]; Matter of O’Donnell v Senkowski, 251 AD2d 717, 718 [1998]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions—to the extent they were preserved for appellate review—and find them to be unpersuasive.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, 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 Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of obstructing the view into his cell in violation of a prison disciplinary rule. That determination was upheld on administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge it.

[1168]*1168Inasmuch as substantial evidence was presented at the disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and petitioner’s testimony, during which he conceded that he had hung a sheet from the bars of his cell as charged in the misbehavior report, we find no basis upon which to disturb the administrative determination (see Matter of Abdul-Malik v Keesler, 288 AD2d 738, 738-739 [2001]; Matter of O’Donnell v Senkowski, 251 AD2d 717, 718 [1998]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions—to the extent they were preserved for appellate review—and find them to be unpersuasive.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1167, 800 N.Y.S.2d 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-greene-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack