Noriega v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noriega v. Goord

270 A.D.2d 954, 705 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3401

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 954 (Noriega 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

Noriega v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 954, 705 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The misbehavior report and the [955]*955testimony of its author, together with confidential information and exhibits, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated various inmate rules. “[T]he disciplinary authorities have offered such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647, citing People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The denials of petitioner and his witnesses that petitioner committed the underlying acts raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The misbehavior report and the [955]*955testimony of its author, together with confidential information and exhibits, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated various inmate rules. “[T]he disciplinary authorities have offered such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647, citing People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The denials of petitioner and his witnesses that petitioner committed the underlying acts raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 954, 705 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noriega-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack