Abdul-Khaliq v. Goord

34 A.D.3d 872, 822 N.Y.S.2d 742
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 2, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 872 (Abdul-Khaliq v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abdul-Khaliq v. Goord, 34 A.D.3d 872, 822 N.Y.S.2d 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent’s determination which found him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit assaulting other inmates, engaging in violent conduct and disobeying a direct order. The misbehavior report and the supporting documentation, together with the witness testimony, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt and, thus, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Williams v Goord, 23 AD3d 972, 973 [2005]; Matter of Rosario v Goord, 12 AD3d 758, 759 [2004]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to provide him with notice of the charges and to enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Ramirez v Goord, 32 AD3d 601, 601 [2006]; Matter of Wigfall v Goord, 16 AD3d 791, 792 [2005]). Finally, any error on the part of the Hearing Officer in denying petitioner access to the medical records of the other inmates involved in the altercation is harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of petitioner’s guilt and the fact that the medical records were not relied upon [873]*873by the Hearing Officer in making his determination (see Matter of Huggins v Goord, 28 AD3d 891, 891-892 [2006]; Matter of Cody v Goord, 17 AD3d 943, 944 [2005]; Matter of Moore v Goord, 255 AD2d 640, 641 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 802 [1999]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Jones v. Fischer
139 A.D.3d 1219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Francis v. Prack
107 A.D.3d 1192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Hardy v. Smith
87 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Gomez v. Fischer
70 A.D.3d 1076 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Tevault v. Fischer
61 A.D.3d 1161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Peana v. Fischer
54 A.D.3d 1126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Nova v. Selsky
54 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Martinez v. Selsky
53 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Mack v. Goord
49 A.D.3d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Dexter v. Goord
43 A.D.3d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Johnson v. Goord
40 A.D.3d 1335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 872, 822 N.Y.S.2d 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdul-khaliq-v-goord-nyappdiv-2006.