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: James O. MURRAY III, 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 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Following a tier III hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of committing an unhygienic act and damaging State property after he was found to have thrown feces throughout his cell. The detailed misbehavior report, as well as petitioner's own testimony, the testimony of a correction officer and another inmate, who were both aware of the incident, and photographs of petitioner's cell provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see generally, Matter of Williams v. State, Dept. of Correctional Servs., 264 A.D.2d 889, 695 N.Y.S.2d 201; Matter of Covington v. Coughlin, 228 A.D.2d 981, 645 N.Y.S.2d 130). Furthermore, any alleged inconsistencies between the testimony offered by petitioner and any other witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Zarvela v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 532, 704 N.Y.S.2d 680).
Petitioner's claim that procedural errors denied him the right to a fair hearing are without foundation. His request for a particular witness was properly denied as that witness' testimony would be irrelevant to the incident charged (see, Matter of Covington v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 803, 693 N.Y.S.2d 250). Similarly, we reject petitioner's contention that his eventual removal from the hearing room constituted an abuse of the Hearing Officer's discretion. In light of petitioner's disruptive and accusatory conduct following the disposition, the Hearing Officer's decision to remove petitioner was well within his discretionary power (see, Matter of Thomas v. Bennett, 271 A.D.2d 768, 705 N.Y.S.2d 445). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: June 15, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)