Harris v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Goord

284 A.D.2d 841, 726 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6873

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

DecidedJune 28, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 841 (Harris 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

Harris v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 841, 726 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from participating in a planned work stoppage, refusing a direct order and refusing an assigned program. Upon administrative appeal, the charge of refusing an assigned program was dismissed and the penalty imposed was modified. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt on the remaining charges.

We find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Danaher v Coombe, 242 AD2d 754; Matter of Grant v Coombe, 240 AD2d 784). Petitioner’s assertion that he was justified in refusing to leave his cell and report to work based on his expressed fear of retaliation from other inmates presented a credibility issue which the Hearing Officer resolved against him (see, id.). Likewise, we reject petitioner’s assertion that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses as the record supports the Hearing Officer’s determination that the testimony of those witnesses would have been irrelevant to the charges (see, Matter of Grant v Coombe, supra). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and, to the extent preserved, found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, 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 Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from participating in a planned work stoppage, refusing a direct order and refusing an assigned program. Upon administrative appeal, the charge of refusing an assigned program was dismissed and the penalty imposed was modified. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt on the remaining charges.

We find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Danaher v Coombe, 242 AD2d 754; Matter of Grant v Coombe, 240 AD2d 784). Petitioner’s assertion that he was justified in refusing to leave his cell and report to work based on his expressed fear of retaliation from other inmates presented a credibility issue which the Hearing Officer resolved against him (see, id.). Likewise, we reject petitioner’s assertion that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses as the record supports the Hearing Officer’s determination that the testimony of those witnesses would have been irrelevant to the charges (see, Matter of Grant v Coombe, supra). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and, to the extent preserved, found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 841, 726 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack