Britt v. Goord

39 A.D.3d 994, 831 N.Y.S.2d 921
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 994 (Britt 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
Britt v. Goord, 39 A.D.3d 994, 831 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

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.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violations of prison disciplinary rules prohibiting violent conduct, refusing a direct order and refusing a frisk. We confirm. The misbehavior report contained a factually specific account of the incident written by the correction officer involved and was endorsed by a witness employee. The misbehavior report, which was accompanied by supporting documentation that included a highly detailed report by a correction sergeant who observed the entire incident, provides substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Goncalves v Donnelly, 9 AD3d 721 [2004]). Petitioner’s exculpatory statements as to the nature of his acts presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 295 AD2d 714, 714-715 [2002]). Petitioner’s procedural objection is unpersuasive. A review of the misbehavior report reveals that it disclosed the relevant details with enough particularity to enable petitioner to prepare a defense (see Matter of Quintana v Selsky, 268 AD2d 624, 625 [2000]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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

Related

Mastropietro v. New York State Department of Corrections
52 A.D.3d 1125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Moxley v. Selsky
45 A.D.3d 1084 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.3d 994, 831 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-goord-nyappdiv-2007.