Baker v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Goord

266 A.D.2d 912, 698 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 912 (Baker 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

Baker v. Goord, 266 A.D.2d 912, 698 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Following a Tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating inmate rule 108.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [9] [i] [escape]). The misbehavior report alleged that defendant left the correctional facility for several hours and went to a motel in Cortland where he rented a room. A receipt from the motel was attached to the misbehavior report and a forensic scientist opined that some of the writing on the receipt matched handwriting samples taken from petitioner. The Hearing Officer properly relied on the determination of the forensic scientist (see, Matter of Davidson v Coughlin, 219 AD2d 843, lv denied 87 NY2d 808). Petitioner did not object to the hearsay testimony of a correction officer relating information provided by the manager of the motel and thus failed to preserve his present contention for our review (see, Matter of Rivera v Selsky, 263 AD2d 955; Matter of Reeves v Goord, 248 AD2d 994, lv denied 92 NY2d 804). In any event, that contention lacks merit (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Following a Tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating inmate rule 108.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [9] [i] [escape]). The misbehavior report alleged that defendant left the correctional facility for several hours and went to a motel in Cortland where he rented a room. A receipt from the motel was attached to the misbehavior report and a forensic scientist opined that some of the writing on the receipt matched handwriting samples taken from petitioner. The Hearing Officer properly relied on the determination of the forensic scientist (see, Matter of Davidson v Coughlin, 219 AD2d 843, lv denied 87 NY2d 808). Petitioner did not object to the hearsay testimony of a correction officer relating information provided by the manager of the motel and thus failed to preserve his present contention for our review (see, Matter of Rivera v Selsky, 263 AD2d 955; Matter of Reeves v Goord, 248 AD2d 994, lv denied 92 NY2d 804). In any event, that contention lacks merit (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 912, 698 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-goord-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack