Rosario v. Goord
This text of 25 A.D.3d 841 (Rosario 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.
Opinion
[842]*842Proceeding 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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
While petitioner was confined in a dry cell,
We confirm. The misbehavior report, which contained a detailed account of petitioner’s concealment of a foreign object in his mouth and false representations to the nurse, provides substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Applewhite v Goord, 22 AD3d 985, 986 [2005]; Matter of Burr v Goord, 284 AD2d 881, 882 [2001]). His claim that the hearing was not conducted in a timely manner was not raised at the disciplinary hearing and is, therefore, not preserved for our review (see e.g. Matter of McKethan v Selsky, 300 AD2d 714, 715 [2002]).
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
A dry cell is one used to isolate an inmate suspected of either ingesting contraband or hiding it on his person.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 A.D.3d 841, 807 N.Y.S.2d 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-goord-nyappdiv-2006.