Dolan v. Goord, 41 A.D.3d 1119 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Dolan v. Goord, 41 A.D.3d 1119 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Simpson v. Jordan (nyappdiv, 2025-02-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Simpson v. Jordan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Petitioner's own testimony largely corroborated the other evidence at the hearing, and his attempt to justify his actions as responsive to an unauthorized order "presented credibility and mitigation issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve" ( Matter of Dolan v Goord , 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [3d Dept 2007]; see Matter of Pitts v Jordan , 230 AD3d 1457 , 1458-1459 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Moorer v Annucci , 230 AD3d 1454 , 1455 [3d Dept 2024]). [FN1] The Hearing Officer was entitled to rely on the allegations in the misbehavior report in support of his determination ( see Matter of Cato v Martusce…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanders v. LaClair
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Turning to petitioner’s procedural claims, we find that the acts of misconduct were sufficiently detailed in the misbehavior report so as to afford him the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]; Matter of Toney v Goord, 26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caldwell v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to afford him the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]; Matter of Toney v Goord, 26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fareedullah v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the charges resulted from an ongoing investigation, it was sufficient for the misbehavior report to set forth the rules determined to have been violated, the particulars of the incident giving rise to the violations and a time period during which said incidents occurred, all of which served to provide petitioner with enough particulars to make an effective response (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 123 [1995]; Matter of Lamage v Selsky, 47 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2008]; Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119-1120 [2007]; Matter of Ellis v Selsky, 29 AD3d 1254 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Taylor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Initially, we find that the written misbehavior report, containing a specific account and authored by the correction officer involved in the incident, who corroborated the report through her testimony, provides substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Saunders v Goord, 49 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2008]; Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pulliam v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the determination did not flow from any alleged bias (see Matter of Dolan v Goord, 41 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Rory Dolan
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 28, 2007.
41 A.D.3d 1119
Cited by 6 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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating a facility movement regulation. We confirm. The misbehavior report with a specific account of the incident, written by the involved correction officer, provides substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]). Petitioner’s exculpatory statements as to his reasoning and the nature of his refusal presented credibility and mitigation issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 295 AD2d 714, 714-715 [2002]). However, as a prison inmate, petitioner did not have the right to choose whether he would comply with the regulation (see Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501, 515-516 [1984]).

Petitioner’s procedural objections are unpersuasive. A review of the misbehavior report reveals that it disclosed the relevant details with enough particularity to enable petitioner to prepare a defense (see Matter of Quintana v Selsky, 268 AD2d 624, 625 [2000]). The record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the determination did not flow from any bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Cayenne v Goord, 16 AD3d 782, 783-784 [2005]). The Hearing Officer appropriately addressed each of petitioner’s requests and complaints. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to[*1120] the extent preserved, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.