From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Connolly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2007
44 A.D.3d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-08262.

October 2, 2007.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated March 23, 2006, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated February 9, 2006, made after a Tier II Superintendent Hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rule 116.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [i]), and imposing penalties.

Jack Lewis, Beacon, N.Y., petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin N. Gutman and Marion R. Buchbinder of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Schmidt, J.E, Rivera, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


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

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination that he violated prison disciplinary rule 116.10 was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Igartua v Selsky, 41 AD3d 717; Matter of Costantino v Goord, 38 AD3d 657, 658; Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky, 36 AD3d 907). Credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the determination ( see Matter of Gilzene v McGinnis, 300 AD2d 658, 659).


Summaries of

Lewis v. Connolly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2007
44 A.D.3d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Lewis v. Connolly

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JACK LEWIS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM J. CONNOLLY, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 2, 2007

Citations

44 A.D.3d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7439
841 N.Y.S.2d 887

Citing Cases

Carlisle v. Lee

When reviewing a prison disciplinary determination, the court must decide only whether the determination was…