Telford v. Mazzuca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Telford v. Mazzuca

294 A.D.2d 442, 741 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4950

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

DecidedMay 13, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 442 (Telford v. Mazzuca) 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

Telford v. Mazzuca, 294 A.D.2d 442, 741 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated August 15, 2000, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated June 12, 2000, made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of harassment, disobeying a direct order, and refusing a search and frisk, and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the respondents’ determination that the petitioner was guilty of harassment, disobeying a direct order, and refusing a search and frisk (cf. Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated August 15, 2000, which confirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated June 12, 2000, made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of harassment, disobeying a direct order, and refusing a search and frisk, and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the respondents’ determination that the petitioner was guilty of harassment, disobeying a direct order, and refusing a search and frisk (cf. Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 442, 741 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telford-v-mazzuca-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack