Rivera v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Goord

3 A.D.3d 634, 769 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 634 (Rivera 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

Rivera v. Goord, 3 A.D.3d 634, 769 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

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 was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting extortion, exchange of controlled substances and solicitation. The charges stemmed from an inmate complaint filed against petitioner, accusing him of extorting food packages and money that had been sent to the facility by the inmate’s family, which petitioner then used to satisfy debts that he owed [635]*635for drugs. The complaint further alleged that the inmate’s grandmother had been contacted at her residence by a third party who directed her to send him money at the correctional facility to pay petitioner’s drug debts.

Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the detailed misbehavior report and the written statement and hearing testimony of the inmate complainant (see Matter of Tosca v Selsky, 298 AD2d 738, 739 [2002]). Petitioner’s testimony and that of his inmate witness raised issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of James v Goord, 306 AD2d 714 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, 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 was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting extortion, exchange of controlled substances and solicitation. The charges stemmed from an inmate complaint filed against petitioner, accusing him of extorting food packages and money that had been sent to the facility by the inmate’s family, which petitioner then used to satisfy debts that he owed [635]*635for drugs. The complaint further alleged that the inmate’s grandmother had been contacted at her residence by a third party who directed her to send him money at the correctional facility to pay petitioner’s drug debts.

Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the detailed misbehavior report and the written statement and hearing testimony of the inmate complainant (see Matter of Tosca v Selsky, 298 AD2d 738, 739 [2002]). Petitioner’s testimony and that of his inmate witness raised issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of James v Goord, 306 AD2d 714 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 634, 769 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-goord-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack