Ocasio v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ocasio v. Goord

242 A.D.2d 916, 662 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10484

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 916 (Ocasio 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

Ocasio v. Goord, 242 A.D.2d 916, 662 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The written misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt because it alleges specific conduct sufficient to support the determination that petitioner violated the institutional rules against fighting and creating a disturbance (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; Matter of Bettis v Coughlin, 186 AD2d 1080). The officer who reported observing petitioner fighting with another inmate, and who gave petitioner several direct orders to stop fighting before petitioner complied and was escorted to another location, was not required to record whether petitioner was pushing, shoving, wrestling with or punching the inmate. Under the circumstances, the use of the word “fighting” was [917]*917sufficiently specific to support the determination (cf., Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, supra, at 649). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, 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 written misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt because it alleges specific conduct sufficient to support the determination that petitioner violated the institutional rules against fighting and creating a disturbance (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; Matter of Bettis v Coughlin, 186 AD2d 1080). The officer who reported observing petitioner fighting with another inmate, and who gave petitioner several direct orders to stop fighting before petitioner complied and was escorted to another location, was not required to record whether petitioner was pushing, shoving, wrestling with or punching the inmate. Under the circumstances, the use of the word “fighting” was [917]*917sufficiently specific to support the determination (cf., Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, supra, at 649). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 916, 662 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocasio-v-goord-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack