Key v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Key v. Goord

19 A.D.3d 849, 797 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 849 (Key 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

Key v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 849, 797 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting fighting, violent conduct, assaulting other inmates and creating a disturbance. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, the hearing testimony and the confidential information, together with the related documentation, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 14 AD3d 903, 904 [2005]; Matter of Ferguson v Goord, 13 AD3d 949, 949 [2004]). The record does not indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Odome v Goord, 14 AD3d 975, 976 [2005]; Matter of McCorkle v Bennett, 8 AD3d 918, 919 [2004]). To the extent that they were preserved, we have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., 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

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting fighting, violent conduct, assaulting other inmates and creating a disturbance. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, the hearing testimony and the confidential information, together with the related documentation, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 14 AD3d 903, 904 [2005]; Matter of Ferguson v Goord, 13 AD3d 949, 949 [2004]). The record does not indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Odome v Goord, 14 AD3d 975, 976 [2005]; Matter of McCorkle v Bennett, 8 AD3d 918, 919 [2004]). To the extent that they were preserved, we have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 849, 797 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/key-v-goord-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack