From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vidal v. Lee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 26, 2014
115 A.D.3d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-03-26

In the Matter of Joseph VIDAL, petitioner, v. William A. LEE, etc., respondent.

Joseph Vidal, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for respondent.


Joseph Vidal, Stormville, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, William A. Lee, Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, dated April 18, 2012, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules and imposing a penalty.

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

There was substantial evidence before the hearing officer ( see generally Matter of Josey v. Goord, 9 N.Y.3d 386, 391, 849 N.Y.S.2d 497, 880 N.E.2d 18) to establish that the petitioner “ma[d]e [a] threat ... in writing” in violation of prison disciplinary rule 102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][3][i] ) and that he “g[a]ve ... a personally owned article without authorization” in violation of prison disciplinary rule 113.15 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][14][v] ). Contrary to the petitioner's remaining contention, the statement of the evidence relied upon by the hearing officer in making his decision, later affirmed on the administrative appeal,complied with due process ( see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935;see also Matter of Laureano v. Kuhlmann, 75 N.Y.2d 141, 146, 551 N.Y.S.2d 184, 550 N.E.2d 437;cf. Matter of Mallard v. Dalsheim, 97 A.D.2d 545, 467 N.Y.S.2d 903;Matter of McQueen v. Vincent, 53 A.D.2d 630, 384 N.Y.S.2d 475).

Accordingly, we confirm the determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits. MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vidal v. Lee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 26, 2014
115 A.D.3d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Vidal v. Lee

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Joseph VIDAL, petitioner, v. William A. LEE, etc.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 26, 2014

Citations

115 A.D.3d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
115 A.D.3d 967
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2063