Davilla v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davilla v. Goord

256 A.D.2d 1073, 684 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14161

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1073 (Davilla 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

Davilla v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 1073, 684 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the written misbehavior report, the testimony of the investigating correction officer and the testimony of an inmate positively identifying petitioner as part of a group that assaulted two inmates (see generally, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The Hearing Officer was free to reject petitioner’s testimony and the testimony of another inmate witness called by petitioner (see, Matter of Fereira v Coombe, 239 AD2d 905, 906). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer failed to act in a fair and impartial manner (see, Matter of Hooper v Goord, 247 AD2d 884, 884-885). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, 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: The determination is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the written misbehavior report, the testimony of the investigating correction officer and the testimony of an inmate positively identifying petitioner as part of a group that assaulted two inmates (see generally, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The Hearing Officer was free to reject petitioner’s testimony and the testimony of another inmate witness called by petitioner (see, Matter of Fereira v Coombe, 239 AD2d 905, 906). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer failed to act in a fair and impartial manner (see, Matter of Hooper v Goord, 247 AD2d 884, 884-885). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1073, 684 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davilla-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack