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: Juan C. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Glenn GOORD, as Commissioner of the 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 was the subject of a misbehavior report authored by a correction officer who had witnessed the exchange of a shiny object, later determined to be a metal weapon, between petitioner and a fellow inmate. This report, together with the testimony of the reporting officer at petitioner's disciplinary hearing, provided substantial evidence in support of a determination finding petitioner guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from making, possessing, selling or exchanging any item of contraband that may be classified as a weapon (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477; Matter of Hay v. Goord, 239 A.D.2d 692, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1019).
We reject petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to choose an employee assistant. The record establishes that petitioner spoke Spanish and that his assistant was the only readily available Spanish-speaking assistant. In any event, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the employee assistance he received was inadequate or that he was prejudiced thereby (see, Matter of Eckert v. Selsky, 247 A.D.2d 728, 669 N.Y.S.2d 95). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are preserved for review, lack merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 07, 1998
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)