Baldwin v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baldwin v. Goord

262 A.D.2d 691, 691 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6239

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

DecidedJune 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 691 (Baldwin 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

Baldwin v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 691, 691 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceed[692]*692ing 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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits inmates from possessing weapons after petitioner was found in possession of a net bag containing three shank-type weapons. Petitioner’s guilt was affirmed upon administrative appeal, although the penalty was reduced, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the detailed misbehavior report combined with petitioner’s own testimony provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Farid v Coombe, 236 AD2d 660). Although petitioner offered an exculpatory explanation for his possession of the net bag, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v Portuondo, 247 AD2d 810, 811). Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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

—Proceed[692]*692ing 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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits inmates from possessing weapons after petitioner was found in possession of a net bag containing three shank-type weapons. Petitioner’s guilt was affirmed upon administrative appeal, although the penalty was reduced, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the detailed misbehavior report combined with petitioner’s own testimony provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Farid v Coombe, 236 AD2d 660). Although petitioner offered an exculpatory explanation for his possession of the net bag, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De La Rosa v Portuondo, 247 AD2d 810, 811). Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 691, 691 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-goord-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack