Green v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Goord

256 A.D.2d 791, 682 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13339

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 791 (Green 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

Green v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 791, 682 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Cor[792]*792rectional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from refusing a direct order and interfering with a cell search. As a result, a penalty of three months in the special housing unit with loss of packages was imposed. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the misbehavior report and the testimony presented at the hearing provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Farid v Coombe, 236 AD2d 660). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that he was denied meaningful employee assistance, that his hearing was untimely, that the Hearing Officer was biased and that his penalty was excessive, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., 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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Cor[792]*792rectional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit inmates from refusing a direct order and interfering with a cell search. As a result, a penalty of three months in the special housing unit with loss of packages was imposed. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the misbehavior report and the testimony presented at the hearing provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Farid v Coombe, 236 AD2d 660). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that he was denied meaningful employee assistance, that his hearing was untimely, that the Hearing Officer was biased and that his penalty was excessive, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 791, 682 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack