From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Dingle v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1997
244 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 19, 1997

(CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was found guilty after a Tier II hearing of violating an inmate disciplinary rule that prohibits refusing a direct order ( see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]). We reject petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report is not sufficiently specific to comply with 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (c). The misbehavior report charges petitioner with refusing a direct order to resume his assigned task of hanging plates and sets forth enough details of the incident to enable petitioner to prepare a defense ( see, Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 663; cf., Matter of Davis v. Coughlin, 200 A.D.2d 904, 905; Matter of Howard v. Coughlin, 190 A.D.2d 1090, 1091). The misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer who gave petitioner the direct order and witnessed his refusal to comply, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination ( see, Matter of Faison v. Stinson, 221 A.D.2d 746; see generally, People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139-140).


Summaries of

Matter of Dingle v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1997
244 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Dingle v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHARLES A. DINGLE, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
668 N.Y.S.2d 119

Citing Cases

Jones v. Fischer

The misbehavior reports contained a written specification of the particulars of the alleged incidents of…

Gray v. Kirkpatrick

In addition, the testimony of one of petitioner's employee assistants was properly excluded because it "would…