Jaime v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaime v. Goord

262 A.D.2d 823, 692 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813

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

DecidedJune 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 823 (Jaime 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

Jaime v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 823, 692 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

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.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits inmates from intentionally exposing their private body parts after petitioner was observed masturbating in clear view of a female correction officer. Petitioner’s guilt was affirmed upon administrative appeal and he then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, we find that the [824]*824detailed misbehavior report combined with the testimony of the reporting correction officer provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Farid v Coombe, 236 AD2d 660). While petitioner claimed that he did not know that the correction officer was making her rounds, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Reynoso v Coombe, 257 AD2d 921). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Graffeo, 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.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits inmates from intentionally exposing their private body parts after petitioner was observed masturbating in clear view of a female correction officer. Petitioner’s guilt was affirmed upon administrative appeal and he then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, we find that the [824]*824detailed misbehavior report combined with the testimony of the reporting correction officer provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of Farid v Coombe, 236 AD2d 660). While petitioner claimed that he did not know that the correction officer was making her rounds, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Reynoso v Coombe, 257 AD2d 921). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 823, 692 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaime-v-goord-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack