Scott v. Leonardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scott v. Leonardo

178 A.D.2d 865, 577 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16850

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 865 (Scott v. Leonardo) 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

Scott v. Leonardo, 178 A.D.2d 865, 577 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

There is no evidence in the record to support petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. As to his claim that he was justified in refusing a direct order because he had a right not to be compelled to attend another hearing, the record fails to indicate that the ordered interview was a hearing; even if it was, that was not justification for refusing to obey the order (see, Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501). The finding of guilt on that charge was also [866]*866supported by substantial evidence. There was petitioner’s own admission and the testimony of the inmate witness, as well as the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who issued the order and authored the report (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Johnson v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 991). As to the finding of guilt on the verbal harassment charge, this involved questions of credibility which were for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De Torres v Coughlin, 135 AD2d 1068, lv denied 72 NY2d 801).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

There is no evidence in the record to support petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. As to his claim that he was justified in refusing a direct order because he had a right not to be compelled to attend another hearing, the record fails to indicate that the ordered interview was a hearing; even if it was, that was not justification for refusing to obey the order (see, Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501). The finding of guilt on that charge was also [866]*866supported by substantial evidence. There was petitioner’s own admission and the testimony of the inmate witness, as well as the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who issued the order and authored the report (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Johnson v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 991). As to the finding of guilt on the verbal harassment charge, this involved questions of credibility which were for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De Torres v Coughlin, 135 AD2d 1068, lv denied 72 NY2d 801).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 865, 577 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-leonardo-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack