Young v. Keyser
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Smith v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Loret v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Shrubsall v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Loret v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Sylvester v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Thompson v. Kirkpatrick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Williams v. Department of Corr. & Community Supervision (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Haigler v. Keyser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Mays v. Cunningham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of McBride v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
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
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with harassment, stalking and violating facility correspondence procedures. The charges stem from petitioner sending a letter to a correction officer wherein he wrote messages of a personal nature about the dangers of smoking. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of harassment and violating facility correspondence procedures, but not guilty of stalking. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Initially, respondent concedes, and our review of the record confirms, that substantial evidence does not support the charge of violating facility correspondence procedures. Accordingly, we annul that part of the determination, but do not need to remit the matter for a redetermination of the penalty because the
Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures; petition granted to that extent and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this charge from petitioner’s institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.