From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lyde v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1999
266 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Decided November 4, 1999

Leval Lyde, Rome, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, YESAWICH JR., PETERS and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT


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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from conspiring to introduce drugs into the correctional facility. The charges stemmed from confidential information and an ensuing cell search which uncovered two lists containing several inmate names along with dollar amounts which the inmates apparently owed to petitioner. Records from the facility business office revealed that the dollar amounts corresponded with disbursements sent by the listed inmates to an individual whose address was also discovered in petitioner's possession. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of the determination.

We confirm. The Hearing Officer heard testimony from confidential sources who provided information leading to the search of petitioner's cell, and the confidential information, misbehavior report and testimony presented at the hearing provided substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt, notwithstanding the fact that no drugs were discovered in petitioner's possession during the search of his cell (see, Matter of Olave v. Goord, 251 A.D.2d 794). Finally, petitioner's claim that he compiled the lists for the purpose of arranging flower deliveries for the named inmates merely created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Pacheco v. Dufrain, 251 A.D.2d 817).

Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims of Hearing Officer bias and ineffective employee assistance, have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

MIKOLL, J.P., YESAWICH JR., PETERS and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Lyde v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1999
266 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Lyde v. Goord

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Nov 4, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 741

Citing Cases

Matter of Kayshawn v. Selsky

The misbehavior report, together with the numerous letters written by petitioner to his brother, the…

Matter of Davis v. Selsky

In his petition, petitioner also challenged a separate administrative determination based upon a misbehavior…