Martinez v. Goord, 48 A.D.3d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Martinez v. Goord, 48 A.D.3d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Cochran v. Bezio (nyappdiv, 2010-02-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cochran v. Bezio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Accordingly, this portion of the determination must be annulled and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record (see Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 48 AD3d 851, 852 [2008] ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Telford v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the determination is annulled to that extent and all references thereto are expunged from petitioner’s institutional record (see Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 48 AD3d 851, 852 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cannon v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report, related documentation and positive drug test results (see Matter of Martinez v Goord, 48 AD3d 851, 851 [2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tevault v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Accordingly, this portion of the determination must be annulled and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record (see Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 48 AD3d 851, 852 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quinones v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Initially, the Attorney General concedes and we agree that, upon reviewing the record, substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of refusing a direct order (see Matter of Torres v Fischer, 53 AD3d 1008 [2008]; Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 48 AD 3d 851, 852 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gomez v. Leclaire
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the petition is granted to that extent and, in light of the undischarged administrative penalty and the recommended loss of good time, we remit this matter to respondent for a redetermination, of the penalty imposed (see Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 48 AD3d 851, 852 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vigliotti v. Bell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony of the correction officer who authored it, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 48 AD3d 851, 852 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jose Martinez
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2008.
48 A.D.3d 851
Cited by 10 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.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting illicit drug use. Following the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged and ultimately given a penalty of two months and 24 days in the special housing unit, five months and 24 days loss of privileges and six months recommended loss of good time. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Initially, we note that the determination of guilt is supported by the requisite substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation (see Matter of Daniels v Goord, 38 AD3d 1073, 1073 [2007]). Turning to petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer was biased, there is no indication in the record that the determination flowed from any purported bias (see Matter of Reid v Goord, 34 AD3d 954, 955 [2006]). As for petitioner’s challenge to the severity of the penalty imposed, we cannot conclude upon review of the record that it was so shocking to one’s sense of fairness as to be excessive (see Matter of Long v Goord, 32 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly before us.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.