Morillo v. Goord

38 A.D.3d 947, 832 N.Y.S.2d 301
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 947 (Morillo 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
Morillo v. Goord, 38 A.D.3d 947, 832 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After an investigation disclosed that petitioner cut another inmate on the side of the face, he was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting an inmate, engaging in violent conduct and possessing a weapon. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, documentary evidence and testimony at the hearing, as well as the confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Turner v Goord, 32 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]; Matter of Key v Goord, 19 AD3d 849 [2005]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the record discloses that the Hearing Officer independently verified the reliability of the information provided by the confidential informants by conducting a personal interview of one of the informants as well as the correction sergeant who interviewed them (see Matter of Camacho v Goord, 18 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2005]; Matter of Berry v Portuondo, 6 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]). The conflicting testimony [948]*948of petitioner and certain inmate witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Boyd v Goord, 18 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]). Moreover, there is no merit to petitioner’s challenge to the misbehavior report as the information contained therein was sufficiently particular to enable petitioner to prepare a defense (see Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord, 25 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either not preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, 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

Bennett v. Fischer
63 A.D.3d 1465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Estevez v. Fischer
63 A.D.3d 1402 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Edwards v. Venettozzi
61 A.D.3d 1224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Nova v. Selsky
54 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Harvey v. Woods
53 A.D.3d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Samuel v. Fischer
53 A.D.3d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Hernandez v. Selsky
50 A.D.3d 1340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Johnson v. Smith
49 A.D.3d 1116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Hoskins v. Fischer
49 A.D.3d 1009 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Sowell v. Selsky
43 A.D.3d 1226 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Graham v. Goord
43 A.D.3d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Reddick v. Goord
42 A.D.3d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
McAllister v. Goord
42 A.D.3d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Roman v. Selsky
42 A.D.3d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 947, 832 N.Y.S.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morillo-v-goord-nyappdiv-2007.