Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Michael WEBB, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Petitioner was found guilty of violating inmate rules 180.14 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][26][v] [refusing to undergo urinalysis testing] ) and 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][7][i] [failing to obey an order of facility personnel] ). We agree with petitioner that the determination finding him guilty of refusing to undergo urinalysis testing must be annulled because the misbehavior report failed to state that petitioner was advised of his rights in the event of his refusal as required by 7 NYCRR 1020.4(c) (see, Matter of Gittens v. Goord, 249 A.D.2d 622, 670 N.Y.S.2d 633; Matter of Roman v. Coughlin, 202 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, 609 N.Y.S.2d 732). Petitioner's refusal, however, supports the determination that petitioner refused to obey an order of facility personnel, regardless of the legality of the order (see, Matter of Roman v. Coughlin, supra, at 1001, 609 N.Y.S.2d 732). Thus, we modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 180.14. Because one penalty was imposed and the record fails to specify any relation between the violations and the penalty, we further modify the determination by vacating the penalty, and we remit the matter to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violation (see, Matter of Roman v. Coughlin, supra, at 1001-1002, 609 N.Y.S.2d 732).
Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 07, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)