Valentine v. Goord

18 A.D.3d 997, 794 N.Y.S.2d 692, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5171
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 12, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 997 (Valentine 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
Valentine v. Goord, 18 A.D.3d 997, 794 N.Y.S.2d 692, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit disobey[998]*998ing a direct order, making threats and interference with an employee. The misbehavior report relates that, upon completion of the testimony portion of a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner refused the Hearing Officer’s orders to exit the room. Instead, petitioner “squared off” in front of the Hearing Officer and, pointing his finger, made a threatening remark. Petitioner’s conduct caused a delay in the completion of the tier II hearing. The misbehavior report, together with the corroborating testimony of its author, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Goncalves v Donnelly, 9 AD3d 721 [2004]; Matter of Lynch v Goord, 285 AD2d 878, 879 [2001] ). Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for objections made at the tier II hearing created a credibility issue for the tier III Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Rizzuto v Sullivan, 295 AD2d 780, 781 [2002] ; Matter of Perkins v Goord, 290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]). Petitioner’s remaining contention has not been preserved for our review.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

Wahhab v. Fischer
77 A.D.3d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cunningham v. Selsky
29 A.D.3d 1254 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Hamm v. Superintendent of Mohawk Correctional Facility
24 A.D.3d 1146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Carrington v. Goord
20 A.D.3d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.3d 997, 794 N.Y.S.2d 692, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentine-v-goord-nyappdiv-2005.