Cepeda v. Goord, 39 A.D.3d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Cepeda v. Goord, 39 A.D.3d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Antrobus v. Lee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer was biased, as the record reveals that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner (see Matter of Stephens v Lee, 115 AD3d 964, 964-965 [2014]; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lewis v. Lee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Garcia v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The record belies petitioner’s further contention that the Hearing Officer failed to consider the evidence presented or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Jackson v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1288, 1288 [2014]; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Kaplin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The record reveals that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and that the determination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer (see Matter of Carlisle v Lee, 96 AD3d 837 [2012]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884, 885 [2008]; Matter of Smythe v Goord, 41 AD3d 608, 609 [2007]; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]; Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky, 36 AD3d 907 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Kaplin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The record reveals that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and that the determination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer (see Matter of Carlisle v Lee, 96 AD3d 837 [2012]; Matter of Reyes v Leclaire, 49 AD3d 884, 885 [2008]; Matter of Smythe v Goord, 41 AD3d 608, 609 [2007]; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]; Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky, 36 AD3d 907 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Topsy v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there is no evidence in the record that the hearing officer was biased against him (see Matter of Rippy v Selsky, 57 AD3d at 907 ; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Topsy v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there is no evidence in the record that the hearing officer was biased against him (see Matter of Rippy v Selsky, 57 AD3d at 907 ; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Likewise, the record discloses that valid extensions were obtained to begin the hearing (see 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]) and that it was commenced and completed within the authorized time period (see Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]; Matter of Berry v Goord, 13 AD3d 947 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cruz v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Moreover, the extension to commence the hearing was timely obtained within seven days of the date of petitioner’s confinement and was needed due to the unavailability of the Hearing Officer and to enable petitioner to receive proper assistance prior to the commencement of the hearing (see 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]; Matter of Berry v Portuondo, 6 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Demarta v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as this physician did not actually prescribe the drug and was an outside provider who was not familiar with the testing apparatus, his testimony was irrelevant (see Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]; Matter of Toney v Goord, 26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Bezio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of this request inasmuch as such testimony was irrelevant to petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Haden v Selsky, 57 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2008]; Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gonzalez v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
As to petitioner’s procedural claims, although the hearing began more than seven days after petitioner was served with the misbehavior report as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a), a timely extension was obtained due to the Hearing Officer’s unavailability, and the hearing was commenced by the date set forth in the extension (see Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mingo v. Ercole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
The hearing officer erred in receiving the testimony of the corrections officer, to the effect that chemical testing showed that the substance seized was brown heroin, without requiring him to lay a foundation with respect to the nature of the test and the procedures utilized (see Matter of Lopez v Kramer, 118 AD2d 572, 573 [1986]; Matter of Kincaide v Coughlin, 86 AD2d 893 [1982]), and in failing to call as a witness the prison official who allegedly tested the substance (see Matter of Giannattasio v Coombe, 237 AD2d 287, 288 [1997]; cf. Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ramon Cepeda
v.
Glenn Goord
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 10, 2007.
39 A.D.3d 640
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Glenn Goord, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections, dated July 28, 2004, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer dated May 28, 2004 made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating disciplinary rules 113.25 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i]), and imposing penalties.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination that the petitioner violated disciplinary[*641] rules 113.25 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i]) was based upon, inter alia, a contraband test which positively identified the suspected contraband as marijuana. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the contraband test was performed in compliance with the relevant regulatory procedures and constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charges against him (see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [£]; Matter of Cross v Goord, 19 AD3d 990 [2005]; Matter of Otero v Selsky, 9 AD3d 631 [2004]; Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 290 AD2d 789, 790 [2002]).

We reject the petitioner’s further contention that he was improperly precluded from calling a certain witness inasmuch as the testimony of the witness he requested would have been irrelevant (see Matter of Rios v Selsky, 32 AD3d 632 [2006]; Matter of Rincon v Selsky, 28 AD3d 565 [2006]; Matter of Burse v Goord, 274 AD2d 678, 679 [2000]).

Moreover, the petitioner’s contention of hearing officer bias is, in part, not properly before us. The petitioner failed to raise at the hearing and on the administrative appeal his contention that the Hearing Officer was biased because she was not concerned with the caselaw, improperly based her findings on his denial of guilt, and imposed an unauthorized penalty (see Matter of Townes v Goord, 32 AD3d 1136 [2006]; Matter of Royster v Goord, 26 AD3d 503 [2006]). In any event, the claim of hearing officer bias is without merit. The record establishes that the hearing was conducted fairly, and the mere fact that the hearing officer ruled against the petitioner does not establish bias (see Matter of Rincon v Selsky, supra; Matter of Pabon v Phillips, 16 AD3d 589 [2005]; Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679 [1993]).

Further, we find no merit to the petitioner’s claim that the hearing was not timely commenced within seven days of the misbehavior report as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a). The record discloses that a valid extension was granted within the seven-day period in response to the petitioner’s request for additional time to obtain documents. Since the hearing was commenced on the date set forth in the extension, it was timely (see Matter of Berry v Portuondo, 6 AD3d 848 [2004]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ., concur.