Brown v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Goord

270 A.D.2d 857, 705 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3652

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 857 (Brown 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

Brown v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 857, 705 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that the determination finding him guilty of violating various inmate rules is not supported by substantial evidence. The misbehavior report, augmented by the testimony of the correction officer, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). Petitioner was not denied the right to call or question witnesses. The record establishes that the Hearing Officer diligently sought to obtain the testimony of all five witnesses requested by petitioner, but that two of the witnesses declined to testify. There is no merit to the contention of petitioner that he had the right to question a witness called by the Hearing Officer (see, Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539, 567-568; Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 119; Matter of Rivera v

[858]*858Goord, 255 AD2d 995). We further reject the contention of petitioner that he was improperly assessed two mandatory surcharges (see generally, 7 NYCRR 254.7 [b]; Matter of Doggett v Goord, 252 AD2d 867). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Law-ton, 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: We reject the contention of petitioner that the determination finding him guilty of violating various inmate rules is not supported by substantial evidence. The misbehavior report, augmented by the testimony of the correction officer, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). Petitioner was not denied the right to call or question witnesses. The record establishes that the Hearing Officer diligently sought to obtain the testimony of all five witnesses requested by petitioner, but that two of the witnesses declined to testify. There is no merit to the contention of petitioner that he had the right to question a witness called by the Hearing Officer (see, Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539, 567-568; Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 119; Matter of Rivera v

[858]*858Goord, 255 AD2d 995). We further reject the contention of petitioner that he was improperly assessed two mandatory surcharges (see generally, 7 NYCRR 254.7 [b]; Matter of Doggett v Goord, 252 AD2d 867). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Law-ton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 857, 705 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack