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: Duane MOORE, Appellant, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered January 10, 2000 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
A tier III disciplinary hearing was held at which petitioner ultimately pleaded guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule against disturbing the order of the facility. The misbehavior report relates that at 11:30 P.M. on February 28, 1999, petitioner was yelling and banging on a bathroom stall, which was occupied by another inmate.
Initially, petitioner contends that service of the misbehavior report was intentionally delayed until his transfer to another facility and that the tier designation was inflated due to bias and retaliation. Although there was a short delay between the date of the incident and the date upon which petitioner was served with the misbehavior report, we find no error inasmuch as there is no requirement that the tier designation be completed within a specified time period (see, 7 NYCRR 251-2.2[a]). To the extent that petitioner asserts that the misbehavior report should have been classified as a tier II hearing, the record fails to support petitioner's claim of retaliation and we decline to substitute our judgment for that of the reviewing officer (see, Matter of Green v. Senkowski, 276 A.D.2d 1006, 715 N.Y.S.2d 913, appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 926, 721 N.Y.S.2d 601, 744 N.E.2d 136; Matter of Gittens v. Senkowski, 165 A.D.2d 937, 561 N.Y.S.2d 101). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his assertion that his plea of guilty was coerced, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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: February 01, 2001
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)