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.
IN RE: Stanley MOORE, etc., petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated December 24, 1998, which affirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer dated October 29, 1998, made after a Tier III superintendent's hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating an institutional rule and imposing a penalty.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner's contention that the determination finding him guilty of possession of an altered item, i.e., altered postage stamps, is not supported by substantial evidence, is without merit (see, CPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 140, 524 N.Y.S.2d 30, 518 N.E.2d 924; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183).
Although the misbehavior report was not signed or endorsed by the correction officer who found the altered stamps, it was signed by the correction officer who brought the stamps to Post Office personnel to confirm that they had been altered. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced as a result of any technical defects in the report (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1[a]; Matter of Adams v. Stinson, 267 A.D.2d 537, 699 N.Y.S.2d 746; Matter of Patterson v. Goord, 266 A.D.2d 611, 697 N.Y.S.2d 764), particularly since he admitted that some of the stamps in question belonged to him.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: April 03, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)