From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Murray v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 15, 2000
273 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Decided and Entered: June 15, 2000

James O. Murray III, Pine City, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of committing an unhygienic act and damaging State property after he was found to have thrown feces throughout his cell. The detailed misbehavior report, as well as petitioner's own testimony, the testimony of a correction officer and another inmate, who were both aware of the incident, and photographs of petitioner's cell provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see generally, Matter of Williams v. State of New York Dept. of Correctional Servs., 264 A.D.2d 889; Matter of Covington v. Coughlin, 228 A.D.2d 981). Furthermore, any alleged inconsistencies between the testimony offered by petitioner and any other witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Zarvela v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 532, 704 N.Y.S.2d 680).

Petitioner's claim that procedural errors denied him the right to a fair hearing are without foundation. His request for a particular witness was properly denied as that witness' testimony would be irrelevant to the incident charged (see, Matter of Covington v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 803). Similarly, we reject petitioner's contention that his eventual removal from the hearing room constituted an abuse of the Hearing Officer's discretion. In light of petitioner's disruptive and accusatory conduct following the disposition, the Hearing Officer's decision to remove petitioner was well within his discretionary power (see, Matter of Thomas v. Bennett, 271 A.D.2d 768, 705 N.Y.S.2d 445). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

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


Summaries of

In the Matter of Murray v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 15, 2000
273 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In the Matter of Murray v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:THE MATTER OF JAMES O. MURRAY III, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, AS…

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

Date published: Jun 15, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 662

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Goord

There is no support in the record for petitioner's assertion that various procedural errors violated his…

In the Matter of Williams v. Goord

This, together with the misbehavior report, the testimony of the senior mail clerk and the documentation…