Sardo v. Murphy

175 A.D.2d 972, 573 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11451
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 29, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 972 (Sardo v. Murphy) 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
Sardo v. Murphy, 175 A.D.2d 972, 573 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner’s confinement in the special housing unit was not due to the filing of the second misbehavior report; he was already in such confinement due to the filing of the first misbehavior report. Accordingly, the requirement that his disciplinary hearing on the second charge be commenced within seven days of his confinement was not applicable (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; Matter of Maldonado v Coughlin, 150 AD2d 692) and compliance with the 14-day time period set [973]*973forth in 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (b) was required. Here, the hearing was completed within 10 days of the filing of the second misbehavior report and was therefore timely (see, Matter of Young v Coughlin, 144 AD2d 753, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 625). Furthermore, the misbehavior report, coupled with the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report as well as the testimony of other witnesses at the hearing, provided substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 156 AD2d 806, affd 76 NY2d 964; Matter of Garcia v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 1000). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected.

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.

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

Related

Thomas v. Selsky
23 A.D.3d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Soto-Rodriguez v. Goord
252 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Neal v. Coombe
232 A.D.2d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Polanco v. Coughlin
193 A.D.2d 918 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 972, 573 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sardo-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1991.