Villot v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villot v. Goord

269 A.D.2d 648, 701 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1074

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 648 (Villot 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

Villot v. Goord, 269 A.D.2d 648, 701 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pur[649]*649su ant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Substantial evidence supports the determination finding petitioner, a prison inmate, guilty of possessing excess State property and the destruction of State property. Petitioner’s contention that a portion of the misbehavior report contained an erroneous reference to his prison cell and, therefore, the charges should be dismissed is without merit. The record as a whole adequately explains the error in the misbehavior report and establishes that it indeed was petitioner’s cell that was searched. The report was sufficient to apprise petitioner of the charges against him, and he has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the error in the misbehavior report (see, Matter of Monge v Goord, 251 AD2d 804). Furthermore, petitioner’s claim of Hearing Officer bias is without any substantiation in the record (see, Matter of Green v McGinnis, 262 AD2d 897). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, 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

—Proceeding pur[649]*649su ant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Substantial evidence supports the determination finding petitioner, a prison inmate, guilty of possessing excess State property and the destruction of State property. Petitioner’s contention that a portion of the misbehavior report contained an erroneous reference to his prison cell and, therefore, the charges should be dismissed is without merit. The record as a whole adequately explains the error in the misbehavior report and establishes that it indeed was petitioner’s cell that was searched. The report was sufficient to apprise petitioner of the charges against him, and he has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the error in the misbehavior report (see, Matter of Monge v Goord, 251 AD2d 804). Furthermore, petitioner’s claim of Hearing Officer bias is without any substantiation in the record (see, Matter of Green v McGinnis, 262 AD2d 897). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 648, 701 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villot-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack