Poblah v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poblah v. Goord

256 A.D.2d 1232, 682 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14409

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1232 (Poblah 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

Poblah v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 1232, 682 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The detailed misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i] [refusing to obey a direct order]; see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contrary version of the incident raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Polite v Goord, 248 AD2d 1017). The Hearing Officer properly refused to call four witnesses requested by petitioner. There was no showing that they witnessed the argument between petitioner and the correction officer, and thus the Hearing Officer properly determined that their testimony would not be relevant (see, Matter of Ortiz v Rourke, 241 AD2d 962, 963). Petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased is without merit (see, Matter of Dawes v Selsky [appeal No. 2], 242 AD2d 907). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Callahan and Balio, 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 detailed misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i] [refusing to obey a direct order]; see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contrary version of the incident raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Polite v Goord, 248 AD2d 1017). The Hearing Officer properly refused to call four witnesses requested by petitioner. There was no showing that they witnessed the argument between petitioner and the correction officer, and thus the Hearing Officer properly determined that their testimony would not be relevant (see, Matter of Ortiz v Rourke, 241 AD2d 962, 963). Petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased is without merit (see, Matter of Dawes v Selsky [appeal No. 2], 242 AD2d 907). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1232, 682 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poblah-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack