Rucco v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rucco v. Goord

256 A.D.2d 1238, 685 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1238 (Rucco 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

Rucco v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 1238, 685 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The misbehavior report, supplemented by the testimony of the correction officers and supporting documentation, provides substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]) by using marihuana (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contention that the first urine sample was improperly collected and documented lacks merit. That sample was discarded shortly after it was obtained and was never tested. The second sample was properly obtained and documented and formed the basis for the Hearing Officer’s determination.

We reject the contention of petitioner that he was deprived of his right to a fair hearing by an impartial Hearing Officer. The record does not establish “that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from such bias” (Matter of Parker v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 929; see, Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The misbehavior report, supplemented by the testimony of the correction officers and supporting documentation, provides substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]) by using marihuana (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contention that the first urine sample was improperly collected and documented lacks merit. That sample was discarded shortly after it was obtained and was never tested. The second sample was properly obtained and documented and formed the basis for the Hearing Officer’s determination.

We reject the contention of petitioner that he was deprived of his right to a fair hearing by an impartial Hearing Officer. The record does not establish “that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from such bias” (Matter of Parker v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 929; see, Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1238, 685 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucco-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack