Cases

Mahoney, P. J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of a Superintendent’s proceeding which found petitioner guilty of violating a disciplinary rule. Petitioner, an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, was charged with assault based on an incident wherein he was alleged to have attack

Main, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found that petitioner should be placed in protective admission. In September 1983, petitioner was transferred from Attica Correctional Facility to Elmira Correctional Facility. During a previous stay at the Elmira facili

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 6, 1978 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. Petitioner, an inmate at the Elmira Correctional Facility, took two sheets and a pillowcase from his cell to the shower room at the facility, and thereafter reported that the linen was stolen while he was taking a shower. He was charged with a violation of correctional i

Application for writ of habeas corpus dated April 10, 1980 denied. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 22,1977 in Chemung County, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus after a hearing. The issue is whether the New York State Board of Parole may add delinquent reformatory time to a subsequent maximum expiration date imposed for a crime committed while on parole. The Court of Appeals in Matter of Balmer v New York State Bd. of Parole (42 NY2d 939) found that such an addition o

Ferguson, Judge (dissenting): I dissent. Unlike my brothers, I am of the view that the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 21 USC § 171, et seq, does not apply to the introduction of opium derivatives into a United States air base located within the boundaries of another sovereign nation. Unless Congress has expressly or by clear implication indicated that a crim

HALLER, J. *869Appellant James Bulen (James) and respondents (the Gaynor beneficiaries)1 are extended family members who are cobeneficiaries of a trust (Trust) created by their grandfather or great-grandfather (Grandfather). Years after Grandfather's death, these individuals and others engaged in contentious dispute

Filed 1/23/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOROTHY W. GAYNOR et al, D070907 Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. (Super. Ct. No. PN16579) JAMES A. BULEN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Super

Mahoney, J. Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered October 3, 1991 in Dutchess County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants Laura Logiudice and Angela Bila (hereinafter the borrowers) own real property in the Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County. The

Kane, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent because I do not *202construe Matter of Huggins v Coughlin (76 NY2d 904) to require that constructive notice of an inmate’s “mental distress” places his mental condition “at issue” in a prison disciplinary hearing. In my view, such an interpretation places an onerous burden on a Hearing Officer to sua spont

Mahoney, P. J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner was an inmate at Downstate Correctional Facility in Dutchess County when, on October 2, 1986, he was involved in an a

950 A.2d 672 (2008) In re Loraine Boley INGERSOLL TRUST. William B. Ingersoll, et al., Appellants, v. Barbara J. Ingersoll, Appellee. Nos. 05-PR-263, 05-PR-337, 05-PR-756. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued September 26, 2006. Decided June 19, 2008. *674 Philip M. Musolino, with whom Lisa J. Dessel

— Mahoney, J. Appeal, in claim No. 1, from an order of the Court of Claims, (Murray, J.), entered November 4, 1985, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim. Appeal, in claim No. 2 from an order of the Court of Claims (Koreman, P. J.), entered April 17, 1986, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim. These appeals raise the issue of whether the State has

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. We initially reject petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process in that he never received any notice advising him of the facility’s procedures with respect

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review two determinations of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that, although he was given a direct order to be on time for the count, he arrived after the gate was closed and after the whistle for the count had been blown. Thi

90 Ariz. 331 (1961) 367 P.2d 791 E.E. SWIFT et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Appellees. No. 6698. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. December 29, 1961. *332 Wilmot W. Trew, and Stockton & Aldrich, Robert Ong Hing, Phoenix, for appellants. John R. Franks, C

—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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner was found guilty after a Superintendent’s hearing of violating disciplinary rule 113.12 prohibiting the use or possession of a controlled substance based upon statements in a misbehavior report, t

JUSTICE TIMMER, opinion of the Court: ¶ 1 These expedited election appeals and cross-appeals raise several issues concerning a political action committee's organizational formation, the adequacy of an initiative title, and whether the trial court erred in finding a sufficient number of valid petition signatures to support placement of the Proposition 127, Renewable Energy Standards In

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. We initially find that petitioner has waived any objection to the designation of the Hearing Officer as he failed to object to the procedure at the hearing at a

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The evidence presented at the hearing, including the fight investigation report, the misbehavior report and the medical reports which showed injuries to another inmate, constitutes substantial evidence to