Weech v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weech v. Kelly

133 A.D.2d 538, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50029

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 538 (Weech 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

Weech v. Kelly, 133 A.D.2d 538, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The decision of the Hearing Officer that petitioner violated rule 106.10 of the regulations governing inmate behavior (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [7]) is not supported by substantial evidence and it must therefore be nullified and expunged from petitioner’s record. Respondents concede that petitioner’s failure to appear at his work program, without more, does not constitute failure to obey a direct order of facility personnel in violation of rule 106.10.

In all other respects, the decision of the Hearing Officer is supported by substantial evidence and should be confirmed (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, 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: The decision of the Hearing Officer that petitioner violated rule 106.10 of the regulations governing inmate behavior (7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [7]) is not supported by substantial evidence and it must therefore be nullified and expunged from petitioner’s record. Respondents concede that petitioner’s failure to appear at his work program, without more, does not constitute failure to obey a direct order of facility personnel in violation of rule 106.10.

In all other respects, the decision of the Hearing Officer is supported by substantial evidence and should be confirmed (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 538, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weech-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack