Hayes v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Goord

255 A.D.2d 904, 680 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12102

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 904 (Hayes 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

Hayes v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 904, 680 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The detailed misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated inmate rules 104.13 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv] [creating a disturbance]) and 109.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [10] [ii] [leaving an assigned area]; see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647). Petitioner’s defense with respect to the alleged violation of inmate rule 104.13 raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Allen v Goord, 252 AD2d 973). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer complied with 7 NYCRR 253.7 (a) (5) by providing petitioner with a written report setting forth the evidence upon which he relied and the reason for the penalty imposed. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The detailed misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated inmate rules 104.13 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv] [creating a disturbance]) and 109.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [10] [ii] [leaving an assigned area]; see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647). Petitioner’s defense with respect to the alleged violation of inmate rule 104.13 raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Allen v Goord, 252 AD2d 973). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer complied with 7 NYCRR 253.7 (a) (5) by providing petitioner with a written report setting forth the evidence upon which he relied and the reason for the penalty imposed. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 904, 680 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack