Bingham v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bingham v. Goord

302 A.D.2d 837, 754 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1762

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 837 (Bingham 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

Bingham v. Goord, 302 A.D.2d 837, 754 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Based upon a misbehavior report and his plea of guilty to the charges therein, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit assaulting an inmate, possessing a weapon and engaging in violent conduct. Petitioner appeals, contending that his justification defense [838]*838was not properly considered by the Hearing Officer. Whether petitioner acted in self defense presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Britt v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 283 AD2d 751). Here, the record establishes that petitioner had found the weapon two months prior to the incident and deliberately brought it with him to the bathroom where he was meeting the victim of the assault. In any event, the penalty imposed demonstrates that petitioner’s justification defense was considered by the Hearing Officer.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Based upon a misbehavior report and his plea of guilty to the charges therein, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit assaulting an inmate, possessing a weapon and engaging in violent conduct. Petitioner appeals, contending that his justification defense [838]*838was not properly considered by the Hearing Officer. Whether petitioner acted in self defense presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Britt v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 283 AD2d 751). Here, the record establishes that petitioner had found the weapon two months prior to the incident and deliberately brought it with him to the bathroom where he was meeting the victim of the assault. In any event, the penalty imposed demonstrates that petitioner’s justification defense was considered by the Hearing Officer.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 837, 754 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bingham-v-goord-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack