Hines v. Goord

29 A.D.3d 1204, 814 N.Y.S.2d 807
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 18, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 1204 (Hines 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
Hines v. Goord, 29 A.D.3d 1204, 814 N.Y.S.2d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

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.

Through an investigation, correction officials discovered that petitioner was participating in gang-related activities, which included exhorting and threatening another inmate. As a result, [1205]*1205he was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in unauthorized organizational activities. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and internal memorandum, together with the testimony of the correction sergeant who authored these documents and that of the inmate who implicated petitioner as a gang member, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lamage v Selsky, 304 AD2d 1004, 1005 [2003]; Matter of Santiago v Goord, 287 AD2d 841, 841 [2001]). Inasmuch as the accusing inmate was not a confidential informant, the hearing officer was not required to undertake an independent in camera assessment of his credibility (compare Matter of Thomassini v Goord, 13 AD3d 954 [2004], appeals dismissed 5 NY3d 848 [2005]). Rather, the hearing officer could evaluate the inmate’s reliability based upon the testimony he gave at the hearing. Petitioner’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review given his failure to make appropriate objections at the hearing (see Matter of Estrada v Goord, 26 AD3d 564 [2006]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, 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

Palermo v. Fischer
110 A.D.3d 1293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Hall v. Fischer
101 A.D.3d 1309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
France v. Bezio
78 A.D.3d 1357 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ramos v. Selsky
48 A.D.3d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Thompson v. Goord
32 A.D.3d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A.D.3d 1204, 814 N.Y.S.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-goord-nyappdiv-2006.