Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Abdullah v. Smith
Abdullah v. Smith, 96 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1983)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1983-07-11
- Topic
- general
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility appeals from a judgment directing that the prison authorities either cease enforcing a rule so as to punish Sunni Muslim inmates for performing Salat in the recreation yard or, in the alternative, permit them access to their cells during recreation periods. It appears that the prison authorities have for several months been accommodating the prisoners’ constitutional right to observe their religion through a rule in compliance with the judgment which permits the prisoners to return to their cells for religious observances and then to return to the exercise yard. There is no showing in the record that the alternative means permitted in the judgment and adopted by the superintendent in lieu of allowing Salat in the exercise yard constitutes an impediment to the maintenance of order and discipline or an unreasonable curtailment of the superintendent’s authority. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Conable, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Abdullah v. Smith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility appeals from a judgment directing that the prison authorities either cease enforcing a rule so as to punish Sunni Muslim inmates for performing Salat in the recreation yard or, in the alternative, permit them access to their cells during recreation periods. It appears that the prison authorities have for several months been accommodating the prisoners’ constitutional right to observe their religion through a rule in compliance with the judgment which permits the prisoners to return to their cells for religious observances and then to return to the exercise yard. There is no showing in the record that the alternative means permitted in the judgment and adopted by the superintendent in lieu of allowing Salat in the exercise yard constitutes an impediment to the maintenance of order and discipline or an unreasonable curtailment of the superintendent’s authority. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Conable, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.