Grant v. Goord

247 A.D.2d 662, 668 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 975
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 662 (Grant 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
Grant v. Goord, 247 A.D.2d 662, 668 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after two urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of cannabinoids and opiates. Petitioner pleaded guilty at his disciplinary hearing, conceding that he has a “drug problem”. He subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence.

By virtue of his knowing and voluntary guilty plea, petitioner is precluded from challenging the determination of his guilt on the ground of insufficient evidence (see, Matter of Shire v Coombe, 240 AD2d 823). Nonetheless, were we to consider this issue, we would find that along with petitioner’s admission of guilt, the misbehavior report and the documentation relating to the positive results of his urinalysis tests were sufficient to constitute substantial evidence in support of the challenged determination (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Holdip v. Travis
9 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Pinkney v. Goord
302 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Fuller v. Goord
299 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Zarvela v. Goord
270 A.D.2d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Mealer v. Selsky
268 A.D.2d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Ruzas v. Goord
268 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Anderson v. Goord
262 A.D.2d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Miller v. Goord
262 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Nunez v. Barkley
262 A.D.2d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Talbot v. Goord
257 A.D.2d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Arvinger v. Goord
255 A.D.2d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Vargas v. Goord
253 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 662, 668 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.