 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Matter of Diaz v. Goord, 98326,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Matter of Dumpson v. Goord, 98343,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's visitor, called by the inmate as a witness, testified that she brought marijuana to him during a visit. This testimony, coupled with the videotape of the visit, the physical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses, was sufficient to support the charge even without drug test results.
|
|||||
| Matter of Estrada v. Goord, 98335,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a proceeding pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. art. 78 to review a determination finding an inmate guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules, by pleading guilty to fighting and failing to report an injury, the inmate was precluded from challenging the evidentiary basis for the determination of guilt.
|
|||||
| Matter of Feisthamel v. Marcy Corr. Facility, 98243,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claimant did not violate N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 114-a, as he did not testify falsely regarding the activities shown on a surveillance video, including driving and exercising, those activities were not inconsistent with his medical condition, and there was no evidence that he concealed his physical capabilities from his physicians.
|
|||||
| Matter of Fischer v. Commissioner of Labor, 98114,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence conflicted as to whether an employee's role in a day care center's before-and-after-school program was more akin to teaching or to babysitting, an administrative factfinder could make its own decision as to whether N.Y. Lab. Law § 590(11) precluded a summer unemployment claim.
|
|||||
| Matter of Green v. Goord, 98332,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a charge of possessing a weapon against an inmate was not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, the determination had to be annulled to that extent, charges of assaulting an inmate and possessing an altered item were supported by the misbehavior report, documentary evidence, and testimony at a hearing.
|
|||||
| Matter of Hawkins v. New York City Tr. Auth., 7746, Index 103362/04,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Matter of Hayes v. Goord, 98087,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A misbehavior report, together with the transcript of a monitored telephone conversation and documentary evidence, provided substantial evidence that an inmate was guilty of conspiring to introduce drugs into the facility, smuggling, and making a third-party telephone call.
|
|||||
| Matter of Hayes v. Goord, 97822,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A misbehavior report, together with hearing testimony and positive urinalysis test results, provided substantial evidence to support the finding of an inmate's guilt of violating the prison disciplinary rule against use of drugs after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for cocaine and opiates. His employee assistant was not inadequate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
