From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muniz v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 14, 2006
32 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

99181.

September 14, 2006.

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 Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Efrain J. Muniz, Cape Vincent, petitioner pro se.

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

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


Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with disobeying a direct order, being out of place and harassing an employee after he refused orders to report to his assigned program and made an obscene comment about a counselor. A tier II disciplinary hearing was held, and petitioner was found guilty of all charges and a penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

The misbehavior report, written by the correction officer who issued the direct orders and endorsed by the counselor who ascertained the facts of the incident, provides substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Mc-Near v Selsky, 25 AD3d 1043, 1044; Matter of Russell v Selsky, 22 AD3d 998, 999; see also 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [b]). Although petitioner contends that he was unable to comply with the orders because he was feeling ill, evidence at the hearing revealed that petitioner did not request an excuse from the medical department and had no medical problem that would have prevented him from attending the assigned program ( see Matter of Moreno v Goord, 30 AD3d 708, 709; Matter of Shun Zhong v Selsky, 307 AD2d 498, 499). In addition, the penalty imposed after the Hearing Officer considered petitioner's disciplinary record and the mitigating factors surrounding the incident was not excessive. Petitioner's remaining arguments are unpreserved for our review and, in any event, lack merit.

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


Summaries of

Muniz v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 14, 2006
32 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Muniz v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EFRAIN J. MUNIZ, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Sep 14, 2006

Citations

32 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6462
820 N.Y.S.2d 368

Citing Cases

Galdamez v. Goord

That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR…

Bennett v. Nesmith

See, e.g.,Efrain J. Muniz v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, 695 N.Y.S.2d 619 (N.Y.App.Div., 3d Dept., 1999); Efrain…