Troutman v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Troutman v. Goord

266 A.D.2d 862, 699 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11853

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating inmate rules 104.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [ii] [engaging in conduct that is violent or that threatens violence]); 102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [3] [i] [making threats]); and 107.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii] [harassing employees]). We reject petitioner’s contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. A detailed misbehavior report setting forth the reporting officer’s observations constitutes substantial evidence of the misconduct described therein (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). Petitioner’s denials before the Hearing Officer presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, supra, at 966; Matter of Polite v Goord, 258 AD2d 795). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Callahan, 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: Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating inmate rules 104.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [ii] [engaging in conduct that is violent or that threatens violence]); 102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [3] [i] [making threats]); and 107.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [ii] [harassing employees]). We reject petitioner’s contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. A detailed misbehavior report setting forth the reporting officer’s observations constitutes substantial evidence of the misconduct described therein (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). Petitioner’s denials before the Hearing Officer presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, supra, at 966; Matter of Polite v Goord, 258 AD2d 795). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Troutman v. Goord, 266 A.D.2d 862, 699 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

266 A.D.2d 862 (Troutman v. Goord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related