Austin v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin v. Goord

295 A.D.2d 662, 742 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 6, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 662 (Austin 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

Austin v. Goord, 295 A.D.2d 662, 742 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit refusing to obey a direct order and creating a disturbance. The incident that led to these charges took place in the facility’s mattress shop where petitioner was assigned to work. Petitioner was conversing with other inmates when the reporting correction officer asked him to take out the trash. Petitioner refused and he informed the officer in a raised voice that he was “busy” and that trash removal was not his job. He then taunted the correction officer by shouting, “We’ll see who runs this place now, huh boys?”

Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at the disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony of the authoring correction officer who observed the misconduct in question (see, Matter of Bullock v Goord, 289 AD2d 864, 865; Matter of Lamage v Goord, 285 AD2d 724, appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 639). The exculpatory testimony given by petitioner and his witnesses presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Mitchell v Drown, 289 AD2d 905, 906; Matter of Leake v Goord, 289 AD2d 752, appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 646). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that [663]*663he was denied due process, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit refusing to obey a direct order and creating a disturbance. The incident that led to these charges took place in the facility’s mattress shop where petitioner was assigned to work. Petitioner was conversing with other inmates when the reporting correction officer asked him to take out the trash. Petitioner refused and he informed the officer in a raised voice that he was “busy” and that trash removal was not his job. He then taunted the correction officer by shouting, “We’ll see who runs this place now, huh boys?”

Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at the disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony of the authoring correction officer who observed the misconduct in question (see, Matter of Bullock v Goord, 289 AD2d 864, 865; Matter of Lamage v Goord, 285 AD2d 724, appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 639). The exculpatory testimony given by petitioner and his witnesses presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Mitchell v Drown, 289 AD2d 905, 906; Matter of Leake v Goord, 289 AD2d 752, appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 646). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that [663]*663he was denied due process, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 662, 742 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack