Rympalski v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rympalski v. Goord

19 A.D.3d 960, 797 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7201

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

DecidedJune 30, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 960 (Rympalski 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

Rympalski v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 960, 797 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits selling a controlled substance. According to the misbehavior report, a confidential informant admitted to purchasing heroin from petitioner and also identified petitioner from a photo array. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report, hearing testimony and confidential information (see Matter of Garcia v Selsky, 15 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]; Matter of Smith v Goord, 304 AD2d 1012, 1013 [2003]). A review of the in camera material establishes that the Hearing Officer, having personally interviewed the confidential informant, made the requisite independent assessment as to the reliability and credibility of the information provided (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 14 AD3d 903, 904 [2005]; Matter of Alba v Goord, 6 AD3d 847 [2004]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.E, Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, 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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits selling a controlled substance. According to the misbehavior report, a confidential informant admitted to purchasing heroin from petitioner and also identified petitioner from a photo array. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report, hearing testimony and confidential information (see Matter of Garcia v Selsky, 15 AD3d 813, 814 [2005]; Matter of Smith v Goord, 304 AD2d 1012, 1013 [2003]). A review of the in camera material establishes that the Hearing Officer, having personally interviewed the confidential informant, made the requisite independent assessment as to the reliability and credibility of the information provided (see Matter of Vasquez v Goord, 14 AD3d 903, 904 [2005]; Matter of Alba v Goord, 6 AD3d 847 [2004]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.E, Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 960, 797 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rympalski-v-goord-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack