Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Dexter v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 2, 2007

43 A.D.3d 516; 840 N.Y.S.2d 232

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

White v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
White v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Smith v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Smith v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Jamison v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Jamison v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Weight v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Parra v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Chapman v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Gonzalez 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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this *517Court 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.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with possession of escape items, possession of a weapon, possession of contraband, smuggling, violent conduct, interference with an employee and refusing a frisk. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of all charges. Petitioner thereafter exhausted his administrative remedies and commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. We now confirm.

The misbehavior report, related documentation and hearing testimony comprise substantial evidence in support of the determination of guilt (see Matter of Abdul-Khaliq v Goord, 34 AD3d 872, 872 [2006]). To the extent preserved, we have reviewed petitioner’s numerous procedural challenges, including his claims that he did not knowingly waive his right to be present at the hearing, he received inadequate employee assistance and he was improperly prevented from calling certain witnesses and presenting retaliation evidence, and find them to be without merit.

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

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.