Goncalves v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goncalves v. Goord

290 A.D.2d 610, 735 N.Y.S.2d 246, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 610 (Goncalves 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

Goncalves v. Goord, 290 A.D.2d 610, 735 N.Y.S.2d 246, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

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 respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit making threats and conduct involving the threat of violence. The misbehavior report relates that at a time when petitioner was an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility in Wyoming County, he sent a letter to respondent Victor T. Herbert, the facility’s Superintendent, wherein he discussed [611]*611his plans “to assassinate a few of your officers and possibly you.” Petitioner stated that he would kill them at close range so they would “see my face before I sho[o]t you in the heart[ ] and nail[] a pair of black gloves to your for[e]head.”

At the disciplinary hearing, the misbehavior report was introduced in evidence as was the testimony of the reporting officer. Also in evidence was petitioner’s testimony wherein he admitted to having written and sent the letter, explaining that he had done so to express his frustration with his treatment at the hands of certain correction officers in the hope that by doing so, he would be granted a transfer to a different facility. Confidential testimony was presented by a social worker from the Office of Mental Health who had evaluated petitioner and found him not to be psychotic.

We find that the misbehavior report and petitioner’s letter, together with the testimony given by the reporting correction officer, the social worker and petitioner himself, were sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Troutman v Goord, 266 AD2d 862; Matter of Trottie v Goord, 253 AD2d 935). The remaining issues raised herein have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello 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

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 respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit making threats and conduct involving the threat of violence. The misbehavior report relates that at a time when petitioner was an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility in Wyoming County, he sent a letter to respondent Victor T. Herbert, the facility’s Superintendent, wherein he discussed [611]*611his plans “to assassinate a few of your officers and possibly you.” Petitioner stated that he would kill them at close range so they would “see my face before I sho[o]t you in the heart[ ] and nail[] a pair of black gloves to your for[e]head.”

At the disciplinary hearing, the misbehavior report was introduced in evidence as was the testimony of the reporting officer. Also in evidence was petitioner’s testimony wherein he admitted to having written and sent the letter, explaining that he had done so to express his frustration with his treatment at the hands of certain correction officers in the hope that by doing so, he would be granted a transfer to a different facility. Confidential testimony was presented by a social worker from the Office of Mental Health who had evaluated petitioner and found him not to be psychotic.

We find that the misbehavior report and petitioner’s letter, together with the testimony given by the reporting correction officer, the social worker and petitioner himself, were sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Troutman v Goord, 266 AD2d 862; Matter of Trottie v Goord, 253 AD2d 935). The remaining issues raised herein have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 610, 735 N.Y.S.2d 246, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goncalves-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack