Soto v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

275 A.D.2d 851, 713 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9351
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 21, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 851 (Soto v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) 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
Soto v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 275 A.D.2d 851, 713 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting assault of another inmate, fighting and violent conduct. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and the inconsistent inmate testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Gebremariam v Goord, 273 AD2d 695; Matter of Pacheco v Dufrain, 251 AD2d 817). To the extent that petitioner’s testimony conflicted with the other evidence at the hearing, this created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Ellis v Coombe, 253 AD2d 945).

We also reject petitioner’s contention that the medical record of the injured inmate should have been introduced at the hearing. Initially, we note that petitioner never requested this document nor objected to it not being introduced. Therefore, the issue is not preserved for our review (see, Matter of Mealer v Selsky, 268 AD2d 723). In any event, the medical report documented the injury the inmate received and is irrelevant to the charges at issue (see, Matter of Quiles v Goord, 271 AD2d 775; Matter of Marquez v Mann, 188 AD2d 956). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they have been preserved for our review, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Related

Lynch v. Goord
288 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 A.D.2d 851, 713 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2000.