Stacchini v. Filion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stacchini v. Filion

306 A.D.2d 914, 761 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6812

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

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 914 (Stacchini v. Filion) 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

Stacchini v. Filion, 306 A.D.2d 914, 761 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Siegel, J.), entered January 8, 2003, seeking review of a determination after a Tier III hearing.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the petition in part and annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [vii]) and as modified the determination is [915]*915confirmed without costs, and respondent is directed to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references thereto.

Memorandum: Respondent concedes that the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [vii] [providing legal assistance to another inmate without prior approval]) is not supported by substantial evidence. However, petitioner admitted that he violated inmate rule 113.16 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [vii] [possessing money and unauthorized valuables]) and thus his present challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt supporting that charge is precluded (see Matter of Fuller v Goord, 299 AD2d 849 [2002]). We therefore modify the determination by granting the petition in part and annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17, and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references thereto. Because the penalty has already been served, there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for administrative reconsideration of the penalty imposed (see Matter of Maybanks v Goord, 306 AD2d 839 [2003]; Matter of Contrera v Coombe, 236 AD2d 661, 662-663 [1997]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Siegel, J.), entered January 8, 2003, seeking review of a determination after a Tier III hearing.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the petition in part and annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [vii]) and as modified the determination is [915]*915confirmed without costs, and respondent is directed to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references thereto.

Memorandum: Respondent concedes that the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [vii] [providing legal assistance to another inmate without prior approval]) is not supported by substantial evidence. However, petitioner admitted that he violated inmate rule 113.16 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [vii] [possessing money and unauthorized valuables]) and thus his present challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt supporting that charge is precluded (see Matter of Fuller v Goord, 299 AD2d 849 [2002]). We therefore modify the determination by granting the petition in part and annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17, and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references thereto. Because the penalty has already been served, there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for administrative reconsideration of the penalty imposed (see Matter of Maybanks v Goord, 306 AD2d 839 [2003]; Matter of Contrera v Coombe, 236 AD2d 661, 662-663 [1997]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 914, 761 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stacchini-v-filion-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack