Gauthier v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gauthier v. Goord

266 A.D.2d 855, 698 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11900

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 855 (Gauthier 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

Gauthier v. Goord, 266 A.D.2d 855, 698 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The misbehavior report, augmented [856]*856by the testimony of two correction officers, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [possession of a weapon]; see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Although the shank was found outside petitioner’s cell window, it was attached to a piece of dental floss that was secured to petitioner’s window by a paper clip. It was attached to the window in such a manner that other inmates could not have reached it (see, Matter of Cowart v Coughlin, 194 AD2d 1036). The contention of petitioner that he had no knowledge of the weapon presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hawkins v Coombe, 225 AD2d 1095, 1096). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, 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 misbehavior report, augmented [856]*856by the testimony of two correction officers, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [possession of a weapon]; see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Although the shank was found outside petitioner’s cell window, it was attached to a piece of dental floss that was secured to petitioner’s window by a paper clip. It was attached to the window in such a manner that other inmates could not have reached it (see, Matter of Cowart v Coughlin, 194 AD2d 1036). The contention of petitioner that he had no knowledge of the weapon presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hawkins v Coombe, 225 AD2d 1095, 1096). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 855, 698 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gauthier-v-goord-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack