Allah v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allah v. Goord

4 A.D.3d 804, 771 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1455

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 11, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered September 23, 2002 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the amended petition and confirmed respondent’s determination finding that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly confirmed respondent’s determination finding petitioner guilty of violating inmate rules 103.20 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [4] [ii] [solicitation]) and 107.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii] [harassment]) and dismissed the amended petition. The charges arose from a letter written and sent by petitioner to a woman outside the correctional facility. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, he was not improperly denied the right to call the recipient of the letter as a witness. Rather, the record before the Hearing Officer establishes that the proposed witness refused to testify (see Matter of Raqiyb v Goord, 261 AD2d 940 [1999]). Present— Green, J.E, Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered September 23, 2002 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the amended petition and confirmed respondent’s determination finding that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly confirmed respondent’s determination finding petitioner guilty of violating inmate rules 103.20 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [4] [ii] [solicitation]) and 107.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii] [harassment]) and dismissed the amended petition. The charges arose from a letter written and sent by petitioner to a woman outside the correctional facility. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, he was not improperly denied the right to call the recipient of the letter as a witness. Rather, the record before the Hearing Officer establishes that the proposed witness refused to testify (see Matter of Raqiyb v Goord, 261 AD2d 940 [1999]). Present— Green, J.E, Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Allah v. Goord, 4 A.D.3d 804, 771 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

4 A.D.3d 804 (Allah v. Goord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related