Terry J. v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Terry J. v. Annucci

206 A.D.2d 578, 614 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7209

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 578 (Terry J. v. Annucci) 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

Terry J. v. Annucci, 206 A.D.2d 578, 614 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered June 10, 1993 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents designating petitioner as a central monitoring case.

Petitioner’s designation as a central monitoring case was based not only upon the fact that he was found with escape paraphernalia, but also on the finding that he had become a severe management problem. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that said designation was arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, because petitioner has not been precluded from participating in programs that are available to other prisoners, there is no merit to his contentions that such a designation has affected a liberty interest or resulted in prejudice. Any remaining contentions advanced by petitioner have been considered and found lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., 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 (Canfield, J.), entered June 10, 1993 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents designating petitioner as a central monitoring case.

Petitioner’s designation as a central monitoring case was based not only upon the fact that he was found with escape paraphernalia, but also on the finding that he had become a severe management problem. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that said designation was arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, because petitioner has not been precluded from participating in programs that are available to other prisoners, there is no merit to his contentions that such a designation has affected a liberty interest or resulted in prejudice. Any remaining contentions advanced by petitioner have been considered and found lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 578, 614 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-j-v-annucci-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack