Matter of Gonzalez v Goord
2007 NY Slip Op 07952 [44 AD3d 1180]
October 25, 2007
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 12, 2007


In the Matter of Patrick Gonzalez, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[*1]Patrick Gonzalez, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitionerguilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, reported to the wrong location to attend an assigned program andpresented documentation authorizing his presence that apparently was signed by the programcoordinator but had not been approved by the program director. It later was determined thatpetitioner was, in fact, not authorized to report to that location due to a prior disciplinaryinfraction. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating numerousprison disciplinary rules. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of beingout of place and making false statements, and the determination was affirmed on administrativeappeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report, related documentation and hearing testimony provide substantialevidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Dexter v Goord, 43 AD3d 516, 517 [2007]). As topetitioner's procedural claims, although the hearing began more than seven days after petitionerwas served with the misbehavior report as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a), a timely extensionwas obtained due to the Hearing Officer's unavailability, and the [*2]hearing was commenced by the date set forth in the extension (see Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39AD3d 640, 641 [2007]). Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the record does not reveal that theHearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Moss v Goord, 36 AD3d977, 978 [2007]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have either not been preserved for ourreview or are lacking in merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.