Velez v. Artuz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velez v. Artuz

286 A.D.2d 442, 730 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8080

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

DecidedAugust 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 442 (Velez v. Artuz) 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

Velez v. Artuz, 286 A.D.2d 442, 730 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Christopher P. Artuz, dated February 11, 2001, which confirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer dated January 9, 2000, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of refusing a direct order and participating in a demonstration, and imposing a penalty.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the determination that he violated two institutional rules was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642; Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964; Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Smith, 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 respondent, Christopher P. Artuz, dated February 11, 2001, which confirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer dated January 9, 2000, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of refusing a direct order and participating in a demonstration, and imposing a penalty.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the determination that he violated two institutional rules was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642; Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964; Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 442, 730 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velez-v-artuz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack