Morales v. Goord

270 A.D.2d 549, 705 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2373
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 2, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 549 (Morales 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
Morales v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 549, 705 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of property damage, gambling and possession of excess bedding. According to the first misbehavior report, an inmate grievance representative discovered a computer file saved under petitioner’s nickname that contained football betting sheets. The second misbehavior report was written after a correction officer conducted a search of petitioner’s cell and discovered an extra mattress, a facility document and miscellaneous sports gambling material. Following unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination of guilt. We confirm.

In our view, the detailed misbehavior reports, the testimony of the inmate grievance representative who authored the first misbehavior report, and petitioner’s own statements provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see, Matter of McCorkle v Selsky, 264 AD2d 890). Petitioner’s exculpatory explanations presented a credibility issue properly resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of McNair v Goord, 265 AD2d 716). Finally, petitioner’s objections to the sufficiency of the second misbehavior report have not been preserved for our review (see, Matter of Rossano v Goord, 243 AD2d 773).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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

Thomas v. Goord
293 A.D.2d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Johnson v. Sabourin
290 A.D.2d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
McKins v. James
285 A.D.2d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Collazo v. Senkowski
282 A.D.2d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D.2d 549, 705 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.