Rizzuto v. Sullivan, 295 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Rizzuto v. Sullivan, 295 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Arbitration between Conifer Realty LLC & Envirotech Services, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Corp., 295 AD2d 780, 780 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 503 [2002]; cf. Brandle Meadows, LLC v Bette, 84 AD3d 1579, 1580-1581 [2011])—notwithstanding other language that purports to limit the arbitrator’s powers. 2 Nor are we persuaded that this arbitration clause was “hidden” in the remediation contract.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Arbitration between Conifer Realty LLC & Envirotech Services, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Corp., 295 AD2d 780, 780 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 503 [2002]; cf. Brandle Meadows, LLC v Bette, 84 AD3d 1579, 1580-1581 [2011])—notwithstanding other language that purports to limit the arbitrator’s powers. 2 Nor are we persuaded that this arbitration clause was “hidden” in the remediation contract.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valentine v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for objections made at the tier II hearing created a credibility issue for the tier III Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Rizzuto v Sullivan, 295 AD2d 780, 781 [2002] ; Matter of Perkins v Goord, 290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Alfonso Rizzuto
v.
D. Sullivan, as Hearing Officer at Elmira Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 2002.
295 A.D.2d 780
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered August 13, 2001 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

[*781] Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from refusing a direct order and interfering with an employee. Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report underlying these charges was filed in retaliation for his filing of numerous grievances and written complaints presented a credibility question for respondents to resolve (see, Matter of Pryce v Goord, 281 AD2d 665). We find no reason to disturb the determination resolving that issue against petitioner. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion of Hearing Officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.