Battiste v. Goord

255 A.D.2d 941, 681 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 941 (Battiste 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
Battiste v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 941, 681 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was charged with violating inmate rules 113.22 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii] [possessing authorized articles in unauthorized areas]) and 105.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [6] [iii] [possessing unauthorized organizational materials]). According to the inmate misbehavior report, a correction officer found petitioner in possession of numerous [942]*942photographs, one of which showed petitioner’s hand displaying a “Bloods” sign. At a Tier II hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to violating inmate rule 113.22 and not guilty to violating inmate rule 105.12. Petitioner testified that the photograph at issue depicted his hand displaying a “peace sign”. After the hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating inmate rule 105.12.

There is nothing in the record to identify the Bloods as an unauthorized organization, i.e., a “gang”; nevertheless, petitioner did not raise that issue in his administrative appeal and thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to it (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). It was for the Hearing Officer to decide whether to credit petitioner’s testimony (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616). The written misbehavior report is sufficiently probative to constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 105.12 (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 140). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Thomas v. Goord
284 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Moore v. Goord
280 A.D.2d 905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Agosto v. Goord
261 A.D.2d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 941, 681 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battiste-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.