From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mabry v. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 2008
57 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-11765.

December 30, 2008.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Correctional Services dated April 19, 2007, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated February 28, 2007, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating Prison Disciplinary Rule 116.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [i]) and imposing a penalty.

Sharon Mabry, Bedford Hills, N.Y., petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.


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

The determination of the Hearing Officer was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Reyes v Goord, 49 AD3d 546; Matter of Igartua v Selsky, 41 AD3d 717). There is no evidence in this record that the petitioner was denied her right to call witnesses or otherwise deprived of due process of law.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Mabry v. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 2008
57 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Mabry v. Maddox

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SHARON MABRY, Petitioner, v. E. MADDOX et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 30, 2008

Citations

57 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 10628
869 N.Y.S.2d 789

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Bradford Applegate v. Heath

2010, are confirmed, the petition is denied, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to…

Charles v. Rockland Cnty. Sheriff

However, since the full record is now before this Court, we will decide the entire proceeding on the merits…