Rizzuto v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rizzuto v. Sullivan

295 A.D.2d 780, 743 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499

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

DecidedJune 20, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 780 (Rizzuto v. Sullivan) 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

Rizzuto v. Sullivan, 295 A.D.2d 780, 743 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered August 13, 2001 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

[781]*781Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from refusing a direct order and interfering with an employee. Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report underlying these charges was filed in retaliation for his filing of numerous grievances and written complaints presented a credibility question for respondents to resolve (see, Matter of Pryce v Goord, 281 AD2d 665). We find no reason to disturb the determination resolving that issue against petitioner. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion of Hearing Officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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 (Castellino, J.), entered August 13, 2001 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

[781]*781Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from refusing a direct order and interfering with an employee. Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report underlying these charges was filed in retaliation for his filing of numerous grievances and written complaints presented a credibility question for respondents to resolve (see, Matter of Pryce v Goord, 281 AD2d 665). We find no reason to disturb the determination resolving that issue against petitioner. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion of Hearing Officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 780, 743 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzuto-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack