Reese v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reese v. Goord

249 A.D.2d 639, 670 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877

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

DecidedApril 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 639 (Reese 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

Reese v. Goord, 249 A.D.2d 639, 670 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit extortion and threatening violence against an inmate. This determination was supported by substantial evidence including the misbehavior report and the confidential testimony reviewed by this Court in camera (see, Matter of Garrett v Selsky, 228 AD2d 758, 759). The countervailing testimony presented by petitioner presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Petitioner’s remaining [640]*640contentions, including his assertions that his due process and regulatory rights were violated, have been reviewed and found to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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 Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit extortion and threatening violence against an inmate. This determination was supported by substantial evidence including the misbehavior report and the confidential testimony reviewed by this Court in camera (see, Matter of Garrett v Selsky, 228 AD2d 758, 759). The countervailing testimony presented by petitioner presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). Petitioner’s remaining [640]*640contentions, including his assertions that his due process and regulatory rights were violated, have been reviewed and found to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 639, 670 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack