Evans v. Goord, 41 A.D.3d 1127 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Evans v. Goord, 41 A.D.3d 1127 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Williams v. Kirkpatrick (nyappdiv, 2017-07-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Williams v. Kirkpatrick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Specifically, the misbehavior report and testimony from the nurse involved in the incident provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Evans v Goord, 41 AD3d 1127, 1127-1128 [2007], Iv denied 9 NY3d 813 [2007]; Matter of Goncalves v Donnelly, 9 AD3d 721, 721 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Khabir Al-Matin v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Lastly, we reject petitioner’s claim that the hearing was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and we find nothing in the record to indicate that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Chavis v Goord, 58 AD3d 954, 955 [2009]; Matter of Evans v Goord, 41 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2007], Iv denied 9 NY3d 813 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Witkowski v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Moreover, our review of the record discloses that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the determination did not flow from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Evans v Goord, 41 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2007] ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Gary Evans
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 1127
Cited by 3 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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating facility visiting procedures, creating a disturbance, harassment and refusing a direct order in violation of prison disciplinary rules. We confirm. The misbehavior report with a[*1128] factually specific account of the incident written by the correction officer involved and endorsed by a witness employee, along with the testimony of the two witnessing correction officers, provides substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; Matter of Goncalves v Donnelly, 9 AD3d 721 [2004]). Petitioner’s exculpatory statements as to the nature of the events and the testimony of his inmate witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 295 AD2d 714, 714-715 [2002]).

Petitioner’s procedural objections are unpersuasive. 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]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

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