From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burr v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 28, 2001
284 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Decided and Entered: June 28, 2001.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

David Burr, Comstock, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from refusing a direct order. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the detailed misbehavior report constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner disobeyed a direct order to lock in his cell (see, Matter of Faraldo v. Senkowski, 275 A.D.2d 833). Petitioner's differing version of events presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Bell v. Leary, 275 A.D.2d 834).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Burr v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 28, 2001
284 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Burr v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVID BURR, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 28, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
727 N.Y.S.2d 345

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Goord

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the modified determination. Upon review of…

Johnson v. Goord

Petitioner was not present to receive the determination because he refused to attend the hearing, and it was…