Lopez v. Goord

49 A.D.3d 1044, 853 N.Y.2d 706
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 20, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1044 (Lopez 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
Lopez v. Goord, 49 A.D.3d 1044, 853 N.Y.2d 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Petitioner, an inmate, was found face down and unresponsive in the prison yard. As a result, he was taken to the facility hospital for examination. It was determined that he was in dire condition and an ambulance was summoned. Once the ambulance arrived, medication was administered and petitioner was transported to an outside hospital for treatment. While there, a drug screen was conducted which proved positive for opiates. Consequently, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with illicit drug use. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he [1045]*1045was found guilty as charged. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the related documentation and testimony adduced at the hearing, comprise substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Callender v Goord, 24 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2005]). To the extent that petitioner asserted that he had been assaulted and drugged against his will, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Pagan v Selsky, 45 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2007]). Petitioner's claim that the drug testing forms were not produced at the hearing and/or given to him is unpreserved for our review given that he failed to lodge an objection at the hearing (see Matter of Filpo v Goord, 37 AD3d 891, 892 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, 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

Monje v. Geoghegan
108 A.D.3d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Torres v. Fischer
106 A.D.3d 1342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Gallagher v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
96 A.D.3d 1319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ortiz v. Fischer
64 A.D.3d 1111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Dozier v. Selsky
54 A.D.3d 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Williams v. Fischer
52 A.D.3d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 1044, 853 N.Y.2d 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-goord-nyappdiv-2008.