From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Midlarsky v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1988
145 A.D.2d 992 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

December 23, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lawton, JJ.


Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: In a misbehavior report filed by C.O. Moscicki, petitioner was charged with refusing to obey a direct order in violation of prison rule 106.10. At his Tier II hearing, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" and asserted that he did not hear the order when it was given. Another inmate also testified that he did not hear the order. Relying on the misbehavior report, the Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty as charged. There was, however, no express finding that petitioner heard the order given. Instead, the Hearing Officer merely stated that "noise and confusion are not valid excuses for non-compliance." That finding bore no meaningful relationship to the issue presented to the Hearing Officer. Absent a finding that petitioner heard the order, it could not be determined that he refused to obey it.

The determination must be annulled and all references to the proceedings must be expunged from petitioner's institutional record (see, Matter Hartje v Coughlin, 70 N.Y.2d 866).


Summaries of

Matter of Midlarsky v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1988
145 A.D.2d 992 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Matter of Midlarsky v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SHELDON MIDLARSKY, Petitioner, v. WALTER R. KELLY, as…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1988

Citations

145 A.D.2d 992 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Matter of Watkins v. Coombe

12, but guilty of a violation of inmate rule 106.10. The Hearing Officer did not make an express finding that…

Varela v. Coughlin

We interpret petitioner's plea as an admission to the factual allegations of the petition, but not as a…