Hoover v. Goord

38 A.D.3d 1069, 831 N.Y.S.2d 602
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 1069 (Hoover 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
Hoover v. Goord, 38 A.D.3d 1069, 831 N.Y.S.2d 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

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.

After a correction officer observed petitioner acting in an unusual manner, petitioner was ordered to take a drug test. When a sample of his urine twice tested positive for opiates, he was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance. 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.

[1070]*1070We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and. related documentation as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Molina v Selsky, 21 AD3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2005]; Matter of Paige v Goord, 19 AD3d 908, 908 [2005]). Petitioner’s claim that the correction officer who administered the drug test altered the result in retaliation for the dismissal of a prior drug charge presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Silverstein v Selsky, 32 AD3d 1100, 1100 [2006]). Moreover, there is nothing in the record to substantiate petitioner’s claim of hearing officer bias or to establish that the determination flowed from any such bias (see Matter of Boatwright v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2005]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, are unavailing.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin 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

Related

Matter of Williams v. Venettozzi
2020 NY Slip Op 07651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
White v. Fischer
95 A.D.3d 1582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Turner v. Fischer
93 A.D.3d 987 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Smith v. Dubray
58 A.D.3d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Webb v. Leclaire
52 A.D.3d 1131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Sales v. Leclaire
47 A.D.3d 1182 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Griffin v. Goord
47 A.D.3d 1046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Moretti v. Selsky
46 A.D.3d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Pagan v. Selsky
45 A.D.3d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Williams v. Selsky
45 A.D.3d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Wolfgang v. Goord
43 A.D.3d 1262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Marino v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
41 A.D.3d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 1069, 831 N.Y.S.2d 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoover-v-goord-nyappdiv-2007.