Rhoden v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rhoden v. Goord

275 A.D.2d 825, 713 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9200

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 825 (Rhoden 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

Rhoden v. Goord, 275 A.D.2d 825, 713 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting demonstration. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report as well as the testimony of its author, to whom petitioner admitted making such statements encouraging a demonstration, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 271 AD2d 770). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Graffeo, Mugglin 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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting demonstration. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report as well as the testimony of its author, to whom petitioner admitted making such statements encouraging a demonstration, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 271 AD2d 770). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Graffeo, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 825, 713 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhoden-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack