Stokes v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stokes v. Goord

270 A.D.2d 900, 706 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3577

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 900 (Stokes 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

Stokes v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 900, 706 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The detailed misbehavior report, along with the testimony of its author, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated various inmate rules (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). By failing to request any witnesses to testify in his behalf at the disciplinary hearing, petitioner failed to preserve for our review his contention that the Hearing Officer erred in not calling those witnesses, and we decline to consider that contention in the interest of justice (see, Matter of Reeves v Goord, 248 AD2d 994, 995, lv denied 92 NY2d 804). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his contentions concerning his employee assistant and documentary evidence, and we have no discretionary power to reach them (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Hurlbutt, 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 detailed misbehavior report, along with the testimony of its author, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated various inmate rules (see, Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). By failing to request any witnesses to testify in his behalf at the disciplinary hearing, petitioner failed to preserve for our review his contention that the Hearing Officer erred in not calling those witnesses, and we decline to consider that contention in the interest of justice (see, Matter of Reeves v Goord, 248 AD2d 994, 995, lv denied 92 NY2d 804). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his contentions concerning his employee assistant and documentary evidence, and we have no discretionary power to reach them (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Hurlbutt, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 900, 706 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack