Gonzalez v. Goord

289 A.D.2d 736, 733 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12014
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 13, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 736 (Gonzalez 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
Gonzalez v. Goord, 289 A.D.2d 736, 733 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Cardona, P. J.

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As a result of petitioner’s failure to return from a seven-day furlough, he was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which require compliance with temporary release rules and prohibit absconding. There is substantial evidence, including the misbehavior report and petitioner’s admissions, to support the determination. Petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of a witness was not timely raised either at the hearing or on administrative appeal. In any event, the record demonstrates that the witness testified by telephone, after which petitioner acknowledged that he had no further questions for the witness. Petitioner’s remaining claim that respondent’s determination violated double jeopardy principles is also lacking in merit, for the prior disciplinary determination upon which he relies was not based on either the violation [737]*737of temporary release rules or absconding but, instead, was based upon petitioner’s separate and distinct act of refusing to obey direct orders during the course of his apprehension (see, Matter of Green v Selsky, 275 AD2d 867, lv denied 97 NY2d 602).

Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, 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

Calhoun v. Selsky
18 A.D.3d 1083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 736, 733 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.