Burgess v. Goord

30 A.D.3d 877, 816 N.Y.S.2d 766
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 877 (Burgess 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
Burgess v. Goord, 30 A.D.3d 877, 816 N.Y.S.2d 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

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.

During a search of petitioner’s cell, a number of items were recovered including, among other things, papers detailing the sale of food items, legal papers belonging to another inmate, five lottery tickets and certain gang-related materials. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with [878]*878engaging in an unauthorized exchange, possessing contraband, smuggling, misusing state property and possessing lottery tickets. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who authored it and the confiscated materials, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of O’Connor v Selsky, 24 AD3d 841, 842 [2005]; Matter of Torres v Goord, 306 AD2d 592, 593 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]). Petitioner’s exculpatory testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]). Petitioner’s procedural claims have not been preserved for our review due to his failure to raise them at the disciplinary hearing.

Cardona, PJ., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

Myers v. Fischer
107 A.D.3d 1189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Collins v. Bezio
73 A.D.3d 1252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Garcia v. Selsky
48 A.D.3d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Costantino v. Goord
38 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hernandez v. Goord
37 A.D.3d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Warren v. Goord
34 A.D.3d 1144 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
White v. Walsh
34 A.D.3d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 877, 816 N.Y.S.2d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-goord-nyappdiv-2006.