Winslow v. Sielaff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winslow v. Sielaff

179 A.D.2d 523

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 523 (Winslow v. Sielaff) 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

Winslow v. Sielaff, 179 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Substantial evidence that inmate McNair did not possess a razor supports the charge that petitioner filed a false report, and undermines his rationale that the threat of a weapon justified his allowing unauthorized officers onto his post. The Hearing Officer’s finding that there was no razor was based on, among other things, the testimony of various officers at the scene that they neither saw nor heard any references to a razor, that no razor was found despite a diligent search, that petitioner did not warn other officers already in the exercise room that the inmate was armed with a razor.

The penalty is not disproportionate to the offense, particularly since petitioner was twice before found guilty of filing false reports. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Substantial evidence that inmate McNair did not possess a razor supports the charge that petitioner filed a false report, and undermines his rationale that the threat of a weapon justified his allowing unauthorized officers onto his post. The Hearing Officer’s finding that there was no razor was based on, among other things, the testimony of various officers at the scene that they neither saw nor heard any references to a razor, that no razor was found despite a diligent search, that petitioner did not warn other officers already in the exercise room that the inmate was armed with a razor.

The penalty is not disproportionate to the offense, particularly since petitioner was twice before found guilty of filing false reports. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winslow-v-sielaff-nyappdiv-1992.