Medina v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. Goord

290 A.D.2d 763, 735 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 412

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 763 (Medina 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

Medina v. Goord, 290 A.D.2d 763, 735 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from making threats. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Crews v O’Keefe, 283 AD2d 692; Matter of Pryce v Goord, 281 AD2d 665). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, 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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from making threats. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Crews v O’Keefe, 283 AD2d 692; Matter of Pryce v Goord, 281 AD2d 665). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 763, 735 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack