Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 8, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1of the Rules of this Court. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Relator is not entitled to habeas corpus relief based upon his contentions that he was deprived of his right to appeal and his right to effective assistance of appellate counsel, and that a newly discovered witness might have exonerated him upon a retrial. Relator’s appeal has in fact been perfected and decided (People v R

OPINION OF THE COURT Harvey, J. Petitioner, while an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility in Ulster County, was found guilty after a Superintendent’s hearing of violating an institutional rule prohibiting fighting. He received a penalty of one year in the special housing unit (hereinafter SHU). Petitioner proceeded with an administrative appeal (see, 7 NYCRR 254.8). Petitioner requested a copy o

*1044Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed (see, Matter of Jermosen v Smith, 84 AD2d 932, Iv denied 56 NY2d 504, 711). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, McGowan, J.—art 78.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Green, JJ.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed (see, People ex rel. Corcoran v Smith, 105 AD2d 1142). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT Jones, J. Under the Constitution and statutes of the State of New York, it would have been a violation of the right of a Muslim inmate to free exercise of his religious beliefs, in *505the limited circumstances of this case, for him to have been subjected to a random pat frisk performed by a correction officer of the opposite sex.

Judgment affirmed. Memorandum: We agree that there should be an affirmance under the limited circumstances described in the decision at Special Term (Conable, J.). We do not find Madyun v Franzen (704 F2d 954) to be controlling here. That case arose in Illinois and the decision was based solely on Federal constitutional law. In New York, in addition to the Federal Constitution, a prisoner’s religious freedom is secured by section 3 of article I of

OPINION OF THE COURT John S. Conable, J. An order to show cause having been issued pursuant to Justice Vincent Doyle’s instructions, and the matter having come on to be heard before me, and a return sworn to on the 6th day of January, 1983 having been filed by the respondents herein, and due deliberation having been had, the following decision is rendered. The petitioner, Edwin Rivera,

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

544 F.Supp. 12 (1982) Jose RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Harold J. SMITH, Warden, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent. No. 81 Civ. 7558(MEL). United States District Court, S. D. New York. May 18, 1982. *13 Jose Rivera, pro se. Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, for respondent; Mark Dwyer, Will

492 F.Supp. 1017 (1980) Eladio RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Harold J. SMITH, Superintendent, Attica State Correctional Facility, Respondent. 79 Civ. 4147 (WK). United States District Court, S. D. New York. July 9, 1980. Eladio Rivera, pro se. Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. of New York County, New York City, for respondent; Robert M. Pitler, Deborah Garay, Asst.

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in People ex rel. Barnes v Smith, (70 AD2d 764). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court — habeas corpus.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.

HUNSTEIN, Justice. Appellant Alejandro Rivera was tried and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with the February 2008 shooting death of Mark Martin.1 Rivera appeals, *218alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court committed reversible err

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge Petitioner Firlando Rivera has filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF No. 1). The State has filed a motion to dismiss the Petition (ECF No. 19), to which Rivera filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 29). The Court has dete

MELTON, Chief Justice. **621Following a jury trial, Selena Rivera was found guilty of malice murder and other offenses in connection with the beating death of three-year-old Nevaeh Pinckney.1 On appeal, Rivera contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. For the reasons set forth belo

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the Commissioner's final determination. On May 21, 2013, plaintiff, th