Wright v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Wright v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Hollmann v. Department of Corrections and (nyappdiv, 2016-05-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Hollmann v. Department of Corrections and
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Turning to the remaining charges, the misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who discovered the letter, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rosales v Prack, 112 AD3d 1025 , 1026 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 865 [2014]; Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Heyward v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Heyward v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cole v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s exculpatory explanation for the contents of the letter presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Alston v Goord, 25 AD3d 852, 852 [2006]; Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burgess v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report and petitioner’s acknowledgment that he wrote the letters and enclosed the heroin, together with the testimony of the correction officer who investigated the incident and authored the misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]; Matter of Benton v Couture, 269 AD2d 642, 643 [2000]), regardless of petitioner’s motivation in sending the letters.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tarantola v. Selsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s denial of the charges raised a credibility issue which the Hearing Officer could reasonably resolve against him given his admission that an envelope of similar nature was found under his mattress (see Matter of Hayes v Goord, 26 AD3d 550, 551 [2006]; Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burgess v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s exculpatory testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alston v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s assertion that the threats were not real and that he was only joking with his brother presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]; Matter of Moore v Goord, 16 AD3d 800, 800 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Magin v. Leclaire
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, although the facility superintendent is directed to designate as a review officer a staff member of the rank of lieutenant or higher, we perceive no impropriety in the designation here inasmuch as it is within the superintendent’s discretion to designate “some other employee” (7 NYCRR 251-2.1; see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Dean Wright
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 16, 2005.
19 A.D.3d 855
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6754
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

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.

After an envelope purporting to be legal mail was returned as undeliverable to the correctional facility where petitioner was housed, a correction officer opened it and discovered two packets of tobacco and rolling papers inside. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling and violating facility correspondence procedures. He was found guilty of both charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report was authored by the correction officer who opened the envelope, which bore petitioner’s DIN number and his return address at a different correctional facility, and who observed the tobacco and rolling papers inside. The report alone provided substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt under the circumstances presented (see Matter of Alejandro v Goord, 278 AD2d 731 [2000]; Matter of Daum v Goord, 274 AD2d 715, 716 [2000]). Based upon the report, the Hearing Officer could reasonably conclude that petitioner sent the letter to himself. Petitioner’s exculpatory testimony presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jackson v Goord, 8 AD3d 852, 853 [2004]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, there was no impropriety in the designation of the food service administrator to act as the Hearing Officer (see 7 NYCRR 254.1). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have either not been preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

[*856] Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.