Vanier v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanier v. Goord

284 A.D.2d 598, 725 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6003

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 598 (Vanier 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

Vanier v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 598, 725 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6003 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating a facility correspondence procedure and refusing a direct order. Initially, the Attorney General concedes, and based on our review of the record we agree, that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of refusing a direct order. Accordingly, this charge must be annulled and expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and, inasmuch as the penalty imposed included a loss of good time, the matter must be remitted to respondents for a redetermination of the penalty imposed (see, Matter of Hall v Goord, 274 AD2d 722). Turning to the remaining charge, we note that petitioner pleaded guilty to violating a facility correspondence procedure and, as such, he is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt in connection therewith (see, Matter of Rollerson v Selsky, 281 AD2d 735). Petitioner’s remaining claims are unpreserved for review (see, Matter of Kross v Goord, 278 AD2d 637) and, in any event, are lacking in merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of the charge of refusing a direct order; petition granted to that extent, respondents are directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record and matter remit[599]*599ted to respondents for redetermination of the penalty imposed on the remaining violation; and, as so modified, confirmed.

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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating a facility correspondence procedure and refusing a direct order. Initially, the Attorney General concedes, and based on our review of the record we agree, that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of refusing a direct order. Accordingly, this charge must be annulled and expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and, inasmuch as the penalty imposed included a loss of good time, the matter must be remitted to respondents for a redetermination of the penalty imposed (see, Matter of Hall v Goord, 274 AD2d 722). Turning to the remaining charge, we note that petitioner pleaded guilty to violating a facility correspondence procedure and, as such, he is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt in connection therewith (see, Matter of Rollerson v Selsky, 281 AD2d 735). Petitioner’s remaining claims are unpreserved for review (see, Matter of Kross v Goord, 278 AD2d 637) and, in any event, are lacking in merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of the charge of refusing a direct order; petition granted to that extent, respondents are directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record and matter remit[599]*599ted to respondents for redetermination of the penalty imposed on the remaining violation; and, as so modified, confirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 598, 725 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanier-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack