Weaken v. Deputy Superintendent Bish

2 A.D.3d 1361, 768 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14336
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 31, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 1361 (Weaken v. Deputy Superintendent Bish) 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
Weaken v. Deputy Superintendent Bish, 2 A.D.3d 1361, 768 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

— CPLR article 78 petition transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Livingston County (Cicoria, J.), entered January 30, 2003, seeking to annul a determination after a Tier III hearing.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

[1362]*1362Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul a determination finding him guilty of violating various inmate rules and imposing a penalty of 180 days in the special housing unit with a concomitant loss of good time and privileges. “Because the petition did not raise a substantial evidence issue, Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court” (Matter of Nieves v Goord, 262 AD2d 1042, 1042 [1999]; see CPLR 7804 [g]; Matter of Ramos v Herbert, 256 AD2d 1191 [1998]). We nevertheless address the issues raised in the interest of judicial economy (see Nieves, 262 AD2d at 1042; Ramos, 256 AD2d at 1191). Although petitioner raises a substantial evidence issue in the brief presented to this Court and also contends therein that his plea was involuntary and that the Hearing Officer was biased, we are unable to address those issues because he failed to raise them on his administrative appeal and thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them (see Matter of White v Goord, 299 AD2d 870, 871 [2002]; Matter of Moore v Goord, 280 AD2d 905, 906 [2001]; Matter of Agosto v Goord, 261 AD2d 888 [1999]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Shoga v. Annucci
2021 NY Slip Op 04837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Cendales v. Annucci
2021 NY Slip Op 04313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Medina v. Rodriguez
2018 NY Slip Op 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Rosales v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 4706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
BROWN, NATHAN v. PRACK, ALBERT
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Brown v. Prack
147 A.D.3d 1295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
BRADWAY, RYAN v. ANNUCCI, ANTHONY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Bradway v. Annucci
145 A.D.3d 1590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
MEDINA, ANTHONY v. SHEAHAN, MICHAEL
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Medina v. Sheahan
136 A.D.3d 1302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Deborah v. Carballada
79 A.D.3d 1785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 1361, 768 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaken-v-deputy-superintendent-bish-nyappdiv-2003.