Figueroa v. Goord

296 A.D.2d 739, 744 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 18, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 739 (Figueroa 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
Figueroa v. Goord, 296 A.D.2d 739, 744 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

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 the Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from refusing to obey a direct order. According to the misbehavior report, the precipitating incident took place in the facility’s law library where petitioner was observed giving legal advice to other inmates. The reporting correction officer directed petitioner to return -to his seat. Shortly thereafter, however, petitioner approached the law library clerk and began conversing with him. When the officer again directed petitioner [740]*740to return to his seat, he became agitated, accused the officer of harassment and threatened to file a federal lawsuit against him. The instant disciplinary proceeding ensued.

Substantial evidence, in the form of the detailed misbehavior report and the testimony given by the correction officer who authored it, supports the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Pabon v Senkowski, 279 AD2d 683, 684; Matter of Faison v Senkowski, 247 AD2d 683). Petitioner’s assertion that his due process rights were violated by various alleged procedural errors and by Hearing Officer bias have been reviewed and found to be without merit (see, Matter of Cooper v Goord, 284 AD2d 844, 845).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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

Ifill v. Fischer
79 A.D.3d 1322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 A.D.2d 739, 744 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/figueroa-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.