From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Quezada v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 23, 2005
19 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

96916.

June 23, 2005.

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Avis Quezada, Marcy, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Andrea Oser of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.


Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting violent conduct, harassment, physical interference, making threats, creating a disturbance, refusing a direct order and refusing to lock in. Initially, petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer was biased is unpersuasive as the record discloses that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and there is no indication that the determination flowed from any alleged bias ( see Matter of Odome v. Goord, 14 AD3d 975, 976; Matter of Salaam v. Goord, 8 AD3d 776, 777). Moreover, the detailed misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who authored it, together with the testimony of the other correction officers on duty on the night of the incident, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt ( see Matter of Knight v. McGinnis, 14 AD3d 984, 984; Matter of Goncalves v. Donnelly, 9 AD3d 721, 721). The testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses merely created an issue of credibility that the Hearing Officer was free to resolve ( see Matter of Binns v. Goord, 12 AD3d 1006, 1007; Matter of Goncalves v. Donnelly, supra at 721). Petitioner's remaining contentions have not been properly preserved ( see Matter of Youngblood v. Goord, 267 AD2d 640, 641; Matter of Stanislas v. Senkowski, 253 AD2d 972, 973).

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


Summaries of

In the Matter of Quezada v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 23, 2005
19 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In the Matter of Quezada v. Goord

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Jun 23, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
796 N.Y.S.2d 753

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Ruggia v. Selsky

Inasmuch as he pleaded guilty to the former charge, he is precluded from now challenging the evidence upon…

In the Matter of Cunningham v. Selsky

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction counselor who prepared it…