Rivera v. Mantello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Mantello

228 A.D.2d 721, 643 N.Y.2d 428, 643 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6448

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 721 (Rivera v. Mantello) 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. Mantello, 228 A.D.2d 721, 643 N.Y.2d 428, 643 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

As a result of his refusal to cooperate with correction officers during a pat frisk, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order and attempted assault on staff. He argues that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence [722]*722and that the Hearing Officer presiding at the disciplinary hearing was not impartial. Upon reviewing the record, we find that the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officers who witnessed the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. Moreover, petitioner’s version of his encounter with the correction officers merely presented a credibility question for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Islar v Coombe, 226 AD2d 851). We further find that the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the administrative determination.

Mikoll, J. P., White, 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

As a result of his refusal to cooperate with correction officers during a pat frisk, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order and attempted assault on staff. He argues that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence [722]*722and that the Hearing Officer presiding at the disciplinary hearing was not impartial. Upon reviewing the record, we find that the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officers who witnessed the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. Moreover, petitioner’s version of his encounter with the correction officers merely presented a credibility question for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Islar v Coombe, 226 AD2d 851). We further find that the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the administrative determination.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 721, 643 N.Y.2d 428, 643 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-mantello-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack