Hay v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hay v. Goord

239 A.D.2d 692, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948

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

DecidedMay 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 692 (Hay 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

Hay v. Goord, 239 A.D.2d 692, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits assaulting staff. He challenges this de termination on the ground that it was not based upon substantial evidence. We disagree. Presented in evidence at the disciplinary hearing was a detailed misbehavior report describing the charged misconduct together with the testimony of two correction officers who were eyewitnesses to the events in question. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674, 675). We reject petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to call an additional correction officer as a witness after two eyewitness correction officers had already testified. This request was properly denied on the ground that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the additional witness could offer any nonredundant information pertaining to the misconduct in question (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; see also, Matter of Cowart v Pico, 213 AD2d 853, 855, lv denied 85 NY2d 812).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits assaulting staff. He challenges this de termination on the ground that it was not based upon substantial evidence. We disagree. Presented in evidence at the disciplinary hearing was a detailed misbehavior report describing the charged misconduct together with the testimony of two correction officers who were eyewitnesses to the events in question. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of James v Strack, 214 AD2d 674, 675). We reject petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to call an additional correction officer as a witness after two eyewitness correction officers had already testified. This request was properly denied on the ground that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the additional witness could offer any nonredundant information pertaining to the misconduct in question (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; see also, Matter of Cowart v Pico, 213 AD2d 853, 855, lv denied 85 NY2d 812).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 692, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hay-v-goord-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack