From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Austin v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 6, 2002
295 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

90240

Decided and Entered: June 6, 2002.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Patrick Austin, Napanoch, petitioner pro se.

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

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


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit refusing to obey a direct order and creating a disturbance. The incident that led to these charges took place in the facility's mattress shop where petitioner was assigned to work. Petitioner was conversing with other inmates when the reporting correction officer asked him to take out the trash. Petitioner refused and he informed the officer in a raised voice that he was "busy" and that trash removal was not his job. He then taunted the correction officer by shouting, "We'll see who runs this place now, huh boys?"

Substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt was presented at the disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony of the authoring correction officer who observed the misconduct in question (see, Matter of Bullock v. Goord, 289 A.D.2d 864, 865; Matter of Lamage v. Goord, 285 A.D.2d 724, appeal dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 639). The exculpatory testimony given by petitioner and his witnesses presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Mitchell v. Drown, 289 A.D.2d 905, 906; Matter of Leake v. Goord, 289 A.D.2d 752, appeal dismissed ___ N.Y.2d ___ [May 7, 2002]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his assertion that he was denied due process, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

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

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


Summaries of

Austin v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 6, 2002
295 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Austin v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF PATRICK AUSTIN, PETITIONER, v. GLENN S. GOORD, AS…

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

Date published: Jun 6, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 922

Citing Cases

Wynn v. Bellnier

The third report arises from petitioner's subsequent refusal to remove his clothing, requiring that it be cut…

McCants v. Selsky

The first charged him with refusing to obey a direct order based upon his failure to comply with a correction…