Kilgore v. Goord

273 A.D.2d 695, 711 N.Y.S.2d 366
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 695 (Kilgore 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
Kilgore v. Goord, 273 A.D.2d 695, 711 N.Y.S.2d 366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

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 the Superintendent of Greene Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of physical interference with an employee, refusing a direct order and harassment. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the correction officer’s misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed and probative to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Almonor v Selsky, 241 AD2d 584, lv denied 90 NY2d 810). [696]*696Petitioner’s contention that the correction officer misrepresented the incident in his report raised a credibility issue properly resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Malik v Senkowski, 271 AD2d 793).

By failing to object at the hearing, petitioner’s claims that he was denied both witnesses and documentary evidence have neither been preserved for our review (see, Matter of Serrano v Goord, 266 AD2d 661, lv denied 94 NY2d 762), nor do they have merit. Petitioner’s witnesses either testified, did not witness the. incident or simply refused to testify and the Hearing Officer fully explored petitioner’s documentary evidence claims and properly found that the requested material was either irrelevant or unavailable (see, Matter of Weatherly v Goord, 268 AD2d 641). Finally, we have examined petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased and find it to be wholly unsupported by the record.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

Smith v. Dubray
58 A.D.3d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pineda v. Goord
35 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Withrow v. Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility
16 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Toledo v. Selsky
12 A.D.3d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Towles v. Selsky
12 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Colon v. Goord
11 A.D.3d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Vaughn v. Selsky
276 A.D.2d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Faraldo v. Senkowski
275 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 695, 711 N.Y.S.2d 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilgore-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.