Dingle v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dingle v. Goord

244 A.D.2d 938, 668 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12303

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 938 (Dingle 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

Dingle v. Goord, 244 A.D.2d 938, 668 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was found guilty after a Tier II hearing of violating an inmate disciplinary rule that prohibits refusing a direct order (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]). We reject petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report is not sufficiently specific to comply with 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (c). The misbehavior report charges petitioner with refusing a direct order to resume his assigned task of hanging plates and sets forth enough details of the incident to enable petitioner to prepare a defense (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 234 AD2d 663; cf., Matter of Davis v Coughlin, 200 AD2d 904, 905; Matter of Howard v Coughlin, 190 AD2d 1090, 1091). The misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer who gave petitioner the direct order and witnessed his refusal to comply, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Faison v Stinson, 221 AD2d 746; see generally, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139-140). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, 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: Petitioner was found guilty after a Tier II hearing of violating an inmate disciplinary rule that prohibits refusing a direct order (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]). We reject petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report is not sufficiently specific to comply with 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (c). The misbehavior report charges petitioner with refusing a direct order to resume his assigned task of hanging plates and sets forth enough details of the incident to enable petitioner to prepare a defense (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 234 AD2d 663; cf., Matter of Davis v Coughlin, 200 AD2d 904, 905; Matter of Howard v Coughlin, 190 AD2d 1090, 1091). The misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer who gave petitioner the direct order and witnessed his refusal to comply, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Faison v Stinson, 221 AD2d 746; see generally, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139-140). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 938, 668 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingle-v-goord-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack