Wigfall v. Goord, 53 A.D.3d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Wigfall v. Goord, 53 A.D.3d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Mojica v. Keyser (nyappdiv, 2022-03-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Mojica v. Keyser
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
The authoring correction officer, however, described the subtle differences between the two sets of sneakers and, in any event, the conflict in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Harris v Annucci , 148 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2017]; Matter of Wigfall v Goord , 53 AD3d 943, 943 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we find that the determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Wigfall v Goord, 53 AD3d 943, 943 [2008]; Matter of Martin v Goord, 46 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elliott v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report and the testimony adduced at the first disciplinary hearing, supports the determination finding petitioner guilty of creating a disturbance and making threats (see Matter of Wigfall v Goord, 53 AD3d 943, 943 [2008]; Matter of Lewis v Goord, 43 AD3d 1259 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1030 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Villafane v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, although there are some gaps in the hearing transcript, they are not so significant as to preclude meaningful review (see Matter of Wigfall v Goord, 53 AD3d 943, 943-944 [2008]; Matter of Butler v Selsky, 49 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rivera v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Turning to the merits, the misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Wigfall v Goord, 53 AD3d 943, 943 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Walsh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report and corroborating hearing testimony (see Matter of Wigfall v Goord, 53 AD3d 943, 943 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Joseph Wigfall
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 24, 2008.
53 A.D.3d 943
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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of refusing a direct order, making threats, harassing facility staff and creating a disturbance. Upon administrative appeal, that determination was affirmed with a modified penalty of 90 days in the special housing unit and a corresponding loss of privileges, along with 60 days of recommended loss of good time. This CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment ensued.

We confirm. Substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report and testimony adduced at the hearing support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1337, 1337 [2008]). Any conflicts that could be construed in the hearing testimony presented credibility issues for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Chaney v Selsky, 37 AD3d 983, 984 [2007]), as did petitioner’s assertion that the misbehavior report was fabricated in an effort to harass him (see Matter of Williams v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2008]). The lapses in the hearing transcript were “not so significant as to preclude[*944] meaningful review by this Court” (Matter of Butler v Selsky, 49 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2008]). As for petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that he was denied documentary evidence, we have examined them and find no reason to disturb the determination.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.