Quintana v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quintana v. Goord

284 A.D.2d 758, 726 N.Y.S.2d 592, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6606

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

DecidedJune 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 758 (Quintana 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

Quintana v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 758, 726 N.Y.S.2d 592, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting interference with an employee, refusing a direct order and leaving an assigned area. We find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Dabney v Murphy, 278 AD2d 714; Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 275 AD2d 842). Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was in retaliation for various grievances that he has allegedly filed against the correction officer who authored it is unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Daum v Goord, 270 AD2d 745). Finally, petitioner’s assertion that his Spanish interpreter improperly translated for him at the hearing, to the extent preserved, has been examined and found to be without merit.

[759]*759Cardona, P. J., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

—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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting interference with an employee, refusing a direct order and leaving an assigned area. We find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Dabney v Murphy, 278 AD2d 714; Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 275 AD2d 842). Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was in retaliation for various grievances that he has allegedly filed against the correction officer who authored it is unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Daum v Goord, 270 AD2d 745). Finally, petitioner’s assertion that his Spanish interpreter improperly translated for him at the hearing, to the extent preserved, has been examined and found to be without merit.

[759]*759Cardona, P. J., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 758, 726 N.Y.S.2d 592, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quintana-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack