violation of that inmate rule (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

violation of that inmate rule in New York

21 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Vasquez v. Goordgreen
nyappdiv · 2001 · cited in 11 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2017
2 sentences

2017We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 104.13 (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 284 AD2d 903, 903-904 ), and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see Matter of Stewart v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1122, 1123 , lv denied 22 NY3d 858 ).

2017We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 104.13 (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 284 AD2d 903, 903-904 [2001]), and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see Matter of Stewart v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]).

711
Williams v. Delta Sonic Car Wash Systems, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 2011 · cited in 11 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2016
2 sentences

2016We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated that inmate rule (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 284 AD2d 903, 903-904 [2001]), and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see Matter of Edwards v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1328, 1330 [2011]).

2016We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated that inmate rule (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 284 AD2d 903, 903-904 [2001]), and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see Matter of Edwards v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1328, 1330 [2011]).

711
Terrence Maybanks v. Goordgreen
nyappdiv · 2003 · cited in 6 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2017
2 sentences

2017Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has served his administrative penalty and -2- 510 TP 16-02057 there was no recommended loss of good time, there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of the penalty (see Matter of Anderson v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 142 AD3d 1369 , 1370; Matter of Maybanks v Goord, 306 AD2d 839, 840 ).

2017Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has served his administrative penalty and there was no recommended loss of good time, there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of the penalty (see Matter of Anderson v New York State Dept. of Corn & Community Supervision, 142 AD3d 1369 , 1370 [2016]; Matter of Maybanks v Goord, 306 AD2d 839, 840 [2003]).

36
Stewart v. Fischergreen
nyappdiv · 2013 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2015–2017
2 sentences

2017We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 104.13 (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 284 AD2d 903, 903-904 ), and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see Matter of Stewart v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1122, 1123 , lv denied 22 NY3d 858 ).

2017We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 104.13 (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 284 AD2d 903, 903-904 [2001]), and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see Matter of Stewart v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]).

35
Brown v. Fischergreen
nyappdiv · 2012 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Inasmuch as it appears from the record -2- 197 TP 11-01963 that petitioner has already served his administrative penalty, the appropriate remedy is expungement of all references to the violation of that rule from his institutional record (see Matter of Brown v Fischer, 91 AD3d 1336, 1337 ).

2012Inasmuch as it appears from the record that petitioner has already served his administrative penalty, the appropriate remedy is expungement of all references to the violation of that rule from his institutional record (see Matter of Brown v Fischer, 91 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2012]).

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Delgado v. Hurlburt green
nyappdiv · 2001
2 sentences

2013We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 121.11 (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 284 AD2d 903, 903-904 ), and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see generally Matter of Edwards v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1328, 1330 ). -2- 867 TP 13-00379 Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has served his administrative penalty, the appropriate remedy is expungement of all references to the violation of

2013Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has served his administrative penalty, the appropriate remedy is expungement of all references to the violation of that rule from his institutional record (see Matter of Delgado u Hurlburt, 279 AD2d 734 , 735 n [2001]).

62012–2013
Monroe v. Fischer green
nyappdiv · 2011
2 sentences

2015Although there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of those parts of the penalty already served by petitioner, we note that the Hearing Officer also recommended nine months’ loss of good time, and the record does not reflect the relationship between the violations and that recom mendation (see Monroe, 87 AD3d at 1301 ).

2015Although there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of those parts of the penalty already served by petitioner, we note that the Hearing Officer also recommended nine months’ loss of good time, and the record does not reflect the relationship between the violations and that recom mendation (see Monroe, 87 AD3d at 1301 ).

32015–2015
Rodriguez v. Fischer green
nyappdiv · 2012
2 sentences

2013We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 107.20, and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see id. at 1375 ).

2013We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 107.20, and we direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the violation of that inmate rule (see id. at 1375 ).

32013–2013
Anderson v. New York State Department of Corrections neutral
nyappdiv · 2016
2 sentences

2017Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has served his administrative penalty and -2- 510 TP 16-02057 there was no recommended loss of good time, there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of the penalty (see Matter of Anderson v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 142 AD3d 1369 , 1370; Matter of Maybanks v Goord, 306 AD2d 839, 840 ).

2017Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has served his administrative penalty and there was no recommended loss of good time, there is no need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of the penalty (see Matter of Anderson v New York State Dept. of Corn & Community Supervision, 142 AD3d 1369 , 1370 [2016]; Matter of Maybanks v Goord, 306 AD2d 839, 840 [2003]).

22017–2017
Cross v. Goord green
nyappdiv · 2003
2 sentences

2011Although petitioner contends that the determination finding that he violated inmate rule 113.25 is not supported by substantial evidence, his plea of guilty to that violation precludes our review of that contention (see Matter of Cross v Goord, 2 AD3d 1425 ).

2011Although petitioner contends that the determination finding that he violated inmate rule 113.25 is not supported by substantial evidence, his plea of guilty to that violation precludes our review of that contention (see Matter of Cross v Goord, 2 AD3d 1425 [2003]).

22011–2011

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check