Young v. Dufrain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Young v. Dufrain

265 A.D.2d 708, 697 N.Y.2d 358, 697 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 708 (Young v. Dufrain) 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

Young v. Dufrain, 265 A.D.2d 708, 697 N.Y.2d 358, 697 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of possessing unauthorized medication and smuggling in violation of prison disciplinary rules stemming from the discovery of five tablets of 600-milligram Motrin in the lining of his coat during a pat frisk in the facility’s main yard. Despite the fact that petitioner has annexed to his verified petition in this matter a photocopy of what purports to be a valid prescription for the tablets in [709]*709question, a review of the record reveals that no proof in this regard was adduced at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing. Absent such documentary evidence, petitioner’s assertion that he had been prescribed the medication at issue merely presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve. Under such circumstances, we perceive no basis upon which to disturb respondent’s determination. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they have been preserved for review, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

—Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of possessing unauthorized medication and smuggling in violation of prison disciplinary rules stemming from the discovery of five tablets of 600-milligram Motrin in the lining of his coat during a pat frisk in the facility’s main yard. Despite the fact that petitioner has annexed to his verified petition in this matter a photocopy of what purports to be a valid prescription for the tablets in [709]*709question, a review of the record reveals that no proof in this regard was adduced at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing. Absent such documentary evidence, petitioner’s assertion that he had been prescribed the medication at issue merely presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve. Under such circumstances, we perceive no basis upon which to disturb respondent’s determination. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they have been preserved for review, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 708, 697 N.Y.2d 358, 697 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-dufrain-nyappdiv-1999.