Johnson v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Goord

280 A.D.2d 998, 720 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 998 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. Goord, 280 A.D.2d 998, 720 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner contends that the determination is arbitrary and capricious because the Hearing Officer failed to set forth the evidence upon which he relied. We disagree, and conclude that the Hearing Officer’s decision complied with the requirements of 7 NYCRR 254.7 (a) (5). We reject petitioner’s further contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; Matter of Anderson v Goord, 270 AD2d 836). Finally, petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his contention concerning the alleged violation of 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (b), and we have no discretionary power to review that contention (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.) Present— Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, 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: Petitioner contends that the determination is arbitrary and capricious because the Hearing Officer failed to set forth the evidence upon which he relied. We disagree, and conclude that the Hearing Officer’s decision complied with the requirements of 7 NYCRR 254.7 (a) (5). We reject petitioner’s further contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; Matter of Anderson v Goord, 270 AD2d 836). Finally, petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his contention concerning the alleged violation of 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (b), and we have no discretionary power to review that contention (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.) Present— Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 998, 720 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack