Toro v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Toro v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Medina v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The record also demonstrates that petitioner participated vigorously in his defense at both hearings, pointing out discrepancies in certain documents, calling witnesses on his behalf and making cogent arguments (see Matter of Cayenne v Goord, 16 AD3d 782, 784 [2005]; Matter of Toro v Goord, 284 AD2d 764, 765 [2001]; Matter of Moore v Selsky, 264 AD2d 923, 925 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Medina v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The record also demonstrates that petitioner participated vigorously in his defense at both hearings, pointing out discrepancies in certain documents, calling witnesses on his behalf and making cogent arguments (see Matter of Cayenne v Goord, 16 AD3d 782, 784 [2005]; Matter of Toro v Goord, 284 AD2d 764, 765 [2001]; Matter of Moore v Selsky, 264 AD2d 923, 925 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cayenne v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Nor do we find hearing officer bias, “particularly in the absence of anything to demonstrate that the determination of petitioner’s guilt flowed from the alleged bias and not from the substantial evidence of his guilt” (Matter of Perkins v Goord, 290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]; see Matter of Otero v Selsky, supra at 632; Matter of Murphy v Selsky, 3 AD3d 631, 633 [2004]). 2 Petitioner’s visual impairment was noted by the Hearing Officer who thereafter assisted him, either personally or through outside aides, in understanding the proceeding and allowing him to knowledgeably participate therei…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Juan Toro
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the State of New York Department of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 21, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 764
Cited by 4 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[*765] of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit the unauthorized use of a controlled substance, harassment, threats and refusing to obey a direct order. He challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not based on substantial evidence. We disagree. Evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing included two misbehavior reports, the positive results of two urinalysis tests, the testimony of a facility employee who had witnessed the charged acts of misconduct and the testimony of a representative of the manufacturer of the urinalysis apparatus used at the facility, who opined that none of the medications being taken by petitioner at the time the tests were conducted could possibly have produced a false positive urinalysis test result. We find this sufficient to constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Mason v Goord, 251 AD2d 829, 830; Matter of Murphy v Selsky, 239 AD2d 724, 725). Petitioner’s contention that he has a hearing impairment that disabled him from participating in his defense is belied by the hearing transcript wherein it is apparent that petitioner understood the statements made by the participants and was able to respond by mounting a vigorous defense on his own behalf (see, Matter of Moore v Selsky, 264 AD2d 923, 924).

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