Gibson v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gibson v. Goord

293 A.D.2d 841, 741 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643

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

DecidedApril 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 841 (Gibson 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

Gibson v. Goord, 293 A.D.2d 841, 741 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered February 1, 2001 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures based on evidence that he mailed a letter to his cousin, whose name appeared on petitioner’s negative correspondence list. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the record contains substantial evidence, including the testimony of a senior correction counselor, demonstrating that petitioner received prior notification of the addition of his cousin’s name to his negative correspondence list. To the extent that petitioner seeks to have the determination of his guilt annulled based upon his claim that the placement of his cousin’s name on his negative correspondence list was unauthorized, we agree with Supreme Court that, regardless of whether petitioner’s claim is meritorious, he was not entitled to ignore the listing and mail the letter. “ ‘Any holding to the contrary would simply encourage inmates to break rules as a means of addressing their grievances and invite chaos’ ” (Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501, 515-516, quoting Matter of Shahid v Coughlin, 83 AD2d 8, 12, affd 56 NY2d 987). Petitioner’s remaining claims are similarly unavailing.

Crew III, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered February 1, 2001 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating facility correspondence procedures based on evidence that he mailed a letter to his cousin, whose name appeared on petitioner’s negative correspondence list. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the record contains substantial evidence, including the testimony of a senior correction counselor, demonstrating that petitioner received prior notification of the addition of his cousin’s name to his negative correspondence list. To the extent that petitioner seeks to have the determination of his guilt annulled based upon his claim that the placement of his cousin’s name on his negative correspondence list was unauthorized, we agree with Supreme Court that, regardless of whether petitioner’s claim is meritorious, he was not entitled to ignore the listing and mail the letter. “ ‘Any holding to the contrary would simply encourage inmates to break rules as a means of addressing their grievances and invite chaos’ ” (Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501, 515-516, quoting Matter of Shahid v Coughlin, 83 AD2d 8, 12, affd 56 NY2d 987). Petitioner’s remaining claims are similarly unavailing.

Crew III, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 841, 741 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack