Polite v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polite v. Goord

248 A.D.2d 1017, 670 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3121

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1017 (Polite 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

Polite v. Goord, 248 A.D.2d 1017, 670 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rules 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]) and 113.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [ii]) is supported by the misbehavior report, which states that, during a search of petitioner’s cell, the correction officer who wrote the misbehavior report found a metal crossbar wedged inside a desk. That evidence is sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that [1018]*1018petitioner knowingly possessed a weapon (see, Matter of Hawkins v Coombe, 225 AD2d 1095, 1096; Matter of Torres v Coughlin, 213 AD2d 861). The testimony of petitioner that he did not know that the crossbar was there presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hay v Coombe, 229 AD2d 1015, Iv denied 88 NY2d 816).

Finally, the record establishes that the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner, and there is no evidence that he was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from any bias (see, Matter of Parker v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 929; Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, 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 determination that petitioner violated inmate rules 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]) and 113.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [ii]) is supported by the misbehavior report, which states that, during a search of petitioner’s cell, the correction officer who wrote the misbehavior report found a metal crossbar wedged inside a desk. That evidence is sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that [1018]*1018petitioner knowingly possessed a weapon (see, Matter of Hawkins v Coombe, 225 AD2d 1095, 1096; Matter of Torres v Coughlin, 213 AD2d 861). The testimony of petitioner that he did not know that the crossbar was there presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hay v Coombe, 229 AD2d 1015, Iv denied 88 NY2d 816).

Finally, the record establishes that the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner, and there is no evidence that he was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from any bias (see, Matter of Parker v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 929; Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1017, 670 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polite-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack