Linnen v. Prack
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Initially we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the hearing was not completed in a timely manner. Excluding the date that the misbehavior report was written (see Matter of Rush v Bezio, 79 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2010]), an extension was obtained within the required 14-day time period and the hearing was concluded within the additional time period granted by the extension (see 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]; Matter of Ifill v Fischer, 72 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2010]). Turning to the merits, the Attorney *987General concedes, and we agree, that substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Smith v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Ifill v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Gittens v. New York State Department of Correctional ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Brown v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Nimmons v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Torres v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Pooler v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Lanfranco v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Valdez v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Hernandez v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.