Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Pabon v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 14, 2000

275 A.D.2d 824; 713 N.Y.S.2d 298; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9199

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Gonzalez v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Nelson v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Mallen v. Hearing Officer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Rivera v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Rollerson v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Thomas v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Burgess v. McGinnis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Douglas v. Foster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating inmate rules against possessing altered items, contraband, stolen property and facility documents without authorization, as well as making false statements and impersonation. Initially, the record reveals that petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of possessing contraband and, therefore, is precluded from asserting that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Shire v Coombe, 240 AD2d 823). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, the testimony offered at the hearing, as well as the exhibits provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt on all charges (see, Matter of Cunningham v Goord, 274 AD2d 814). We also reject petitioner’s proffered defenses including his contention that he did not steal the documents himself. These assertions raised a credibility issue properly resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Rivera v Goord, 274 AD2d 813). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and are found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. *825Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.