Pryce v. Goord

281 A.D.2d 665, 721 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2044
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 665 (Pryce 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
Pryce v. Goord, 281 A.D.2d 665, 721 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

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 the Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from creating a disturbance, harassment, refusing a direct order and making threats. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Barnes v Goord, 279 AD2d 685; Matter of Kwiatkowski v Goord, 276 AD2d 986). Although petitioner claims that the correction officer who authored the report fabricated the charges in retaliation for a grievance that petitioner filed against him, we find no reason to disturb the Hearing Officer’s determination resolving this credibility issue against petitioner (see, Matter of Daum v Goord, 270 AD2d 745, 746; Matter of James v Couture, 266 AD2d 604, 605). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of Hearing Officer bias, and conclude that they are either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

[666]*666Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, 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

Roncini v. Goord
18 A.D.3d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Jamison v. Goord
8 A.D.3d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Johnson v. Selsky
2 A.D.3d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Antonucci v. David
306 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Burr v. Goord
305 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Bonez v. McGinnis
305 A.D.2d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Crawford v. Girdich
301 A.D.2d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rizzuto v. Sullivan
295 A.D.2d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Vega v. Selsky
293 A.D.2d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Medina v. Goord
290 A.D.2d 763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Thomas v. Goord
286 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Crews v. O'Keefe
283 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D.2d 665, 721 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryce-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.