Tocco v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tocco v. Kelly

138 A.D.2d 977, 526 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2621

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.2d 977 (Tocco v. Kelly) 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

Tocco v. Kelly, 138 A.D.2d 977, 526 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified, confirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, was charged with violating disciplinary rules 113.00, 113.11 and 113.15. Respondent concedes that rule 113.00 (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [14] [i]) does not set forth any specific acts of misconduct and is merely a series heading. We conclude that the finding that petitioner violated this rule should, therefore, be annulled. There was substantial evidence to support respondent’s determinations on the remaining charges and we confirm those determinations. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified, confirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, was charged with violating disciplinary rules 113.00, 113.11 and 113.15. Respondent concedes that rule 113.00 (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [14] [i]) does not set forth any specific acts of misconduct and is merely a series heading. We conclude that the finding that petitioner violated this rule should, therefore, be annulled. There was substantial evidence to support respondent’s determinations on the remaining charges and we confirm those determinations. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 977, 526 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tocco-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1988.