Grant v. Goord, 247 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Grant v. Goord, 247 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Holdip v. Travis (nyappdiv, 2004-07-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holdip v. Travis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The plea of guilty by petitioner to the sole charge against him precludes his present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of guilt (see Matter of Grant v Goord, 247 AD2d 662, 663 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Robert Grant
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 5, 1998.
247 A.D.2d 662
Carpinello, III, Mikoll, Peters, Spain.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after two urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of cannabinoids and opiates. Petitioner pleaded guilty at his disciplinary hearing, conceding that he has a “drug problem”. He subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence.

By virtue of his knowing and voluntary guilty plea, petitioner is precluded from challenging the determination of his guilt on the ground of insufficient evidence (see, Matter of Shire v Coombe, 240 AD2d 823). Nonetheless, were we to consider this issue, we would find that along with petitioner’s admission of guilt, the misbehavior report and the documentation relating to the positive results of his urinalysis tests were sufficient to constitute substantial evidence in support of the challenged determination (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.