Burr v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burr v. Goord

284 A.D.2d 881, 727 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6854

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 2001·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from refusing a direct order. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the [882]*882detailed misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner disobeyed a direct order to lock in his cell (see, Matter of Faraldo v Senkowski, 275 AD2d 833). Petitioner’s differing version of events presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Bell v Leary, 275 AD2d 834).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, 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 Washington County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from refusing a direct order. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the [882]*882detailed misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner disobeyed a direct order to lock in his cell (see, Matter of Faraldo v Senkowski, 275 AD2d 833). Petitioner’s differing version of events presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Bell v Leary, 275 AD2d 834).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Burr v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 881, 727 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

284 A.D.2d 881 (Burr v. Goord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related