Vasquez v. Goord
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- COLLINS, JUNIOR v. ANNUCCI, ANTHONY (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Washington v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- JOHNSON, LEROY v. LEMPKE, JOHN B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Johnson v. Lempke (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Johnson v. Lempke (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- STEWART, RANDLOPH v. FISCHER, BRIAN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Stewart v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Stewart v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- RODRIGUEZ, ALBERTO v. FISCHER, BRIAN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Rodriguez v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Rodriguez v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Gonzalez v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Gourdine v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Davis v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Gourdine v. Leclaire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Green v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
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
—Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination, following a Tier III disciplinary hearing, that he violated inmate rules 103.20 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [4] [ii] [soliciting money from non-family member]) and 180.17 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [26] [vii] [providing unauthorized legal assistance to another inmate]). Respondent concedes that the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17 is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.17 {see, Matter of Anderson v Goord, 270 AD2d
Opinion of the Court
Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.