Rodriguez v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Goord

289 A.D.2d 835, 734 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12344

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rodriguez v. Goord. Read the opinion of the Court — 260 A.D.2d 736 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 20, 2001·Published

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 assault, fighting and engaging in violent conduct. We find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Kalid v Farrell, 284 AD2d 603). Although petitioner claimed that he was not involved in the assault, this created a credibility issue that the Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve against him (see, Matter of Washington v Selsky, 271 AD2d 798; Matter of Nieves v Selsky, 263 AD2d 795, 796). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for our review.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello 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 assault, fighting and engaging in violent conduct. We find that the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Kalid v Farrell, 284 AD2d 603). Although petitioner claimed that he was not involved in the assault, this created a credibility issue that the Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve against him (see, Matter of Washington v Selsky, 271 AD2d 798; Matter of Nieves v Selsky, 263 AD2d 795, 796). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for our review.

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

Rodriguez v. Goord, 289 A.D.2d 835, 734 N.Y.S.2d 503, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

289 A.D.2d 835 (Rodriguez v. Goord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related