Godwin v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Godwin v. Goord

282 A.D.2d 850, 722 N.Y.S.2d 926, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3697

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

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 850 (Godwin 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

Godwin v. Goord, 282 A.D.2d 850, 722 N.Y.S.2d 926, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered August 23, 2000 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services withholding petitioner’s good-time allowance.

[851]*851Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging a determination withholding eight years and eight months of his good-time credits which was based on the results of numerous tier III disciplinary hearings. Petitioner contended that he was denied due process in that he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard at the time of the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm.

An inmate who loses good-time credits based upon prior disciplinary hearings is not entitled to a further hearing (see, Correction Law § 803 [1] [a]; Matter of Urbina v McGinnis, 270 AD2d 535). Inasmuch as the decision to withhold petitioner’s good-time allowance was made in accordance with the law and was properly based upon petitioner’s violation of institutional rules, judicial review is precluded (see, Correction Law § 803 [4]; Matter of Urbina v McGinnis, supra, at 536). Petitioner’s remaining claims have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

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

—Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered August 23, 2000 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services withholding petitioner’s good-time allowance.

[851]*851Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging a determination withholding eight years and eight months of his good-time credits which was based on the results of numerous tier III disciplinary hearings. Petitioner contended that he was denied due process in that he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard at the time of the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm.

An inmate who loses good-time credits based upon prior disciplinary hearings is not entitled to a further hearing (see, Correction Law § 803 [1] [a]; Matter of Urbina v McGinnis, 270 AD2d 535). Inasmuch as the decision to withhold petitioner’s good-time allowance was made in accordance with the law and was properly based upon petitioner’s violation of institutional rules, judicial review is precluded (see, Correction Law § 803 [4]; Matter of Urbina v McGinnis, supra, at 536). Petitioner’s remaining claims have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 850, 722 N.Y.S.2d 926, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack