Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Ojeda v. Venettozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 17, 2012

99 A.D.3d 914; 952 N.Y.2d 274

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Stephens v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Stephens v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Matter of Hamlett v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Phillips v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Phillips v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In reaching his determination that the petitioner violated prison disciplinary rule 113.10 (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]) by possessing a weapon, the respondent relied upon a misbehavior report as well as the testimony of the correction officer who discovered the weapon following a search of the petitioner’s cell, and the testimony of the petitioner himself. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, this constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charge sustained against him (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123 [1995]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884 [2008]). Any credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the hearing officer’s determination (see Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d at 885).

*915The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.