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: Joseph VIDAL, 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, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of solicitation after it was discovered that he had attempted to open an outside money market account. The misbehavior report, as well as the testimony of petitioner and his requested witnesses, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Knight v. Goord, 267 A.D.2d 523, 698 N.Y.S.2d 922, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 760, 706 N.Y.S.2d 81, 727 N.E.2d 578). Petitioner's contention that the purpose of the money was for legal fees raised a credibility issue properly resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Crosby v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 931, 701 N.Y.S.2d 752). Furthermore, we also reject petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer's signature on the bottom of the disbursement form constituted direct involvement in the incident. The record reveals that the Hearing Officer's involvement in the matter was, at best, tangential and that he was not aware of the particulars of the underlying incident prior to the start of the hearing (see, 7 NYCRR 254.1; Matter of Reynolds v. Selsky, 270 A.D.2d 743, 704 N.Y.S.2d 389). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.
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 08, 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)