Matter of Chapman v Goord
2008 NY Slip Op 01891 [49 AD3d 944]
March 6, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


In the Matter of Darrell Chapman, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[*1]Darrell Chapman, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet 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.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of possessing a weapon,refusing a direct order and smuggling. Upon administrative appeal, the charge of refusing a directorder was dismissed and the determination was otherwise affirmed. This CPLR article 78proceeding ensued.

The detailed misbehavior report, related memoranda and testimony adduced at the hearingprovide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing aweapon and smuggling (see Matter ofWilson v Goord, 47 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2008]; Matter of Dexter v Goord, 43 AD3d 516, 517 [2007]). Petitioner'ssuggestion that the weapon could have been planted in the contraband watch room prior to hisarrival created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wilson vGoord, supra; Matter of Yancey vConway, 46 AD3d 1042 [2007]). Although no search of the contraband watch room wasrecorded in the watch room log book (see Department of Correctional Services DirectiveNo. 4910 [IV] [J] [4] [b]), testimony at the hearing established that such a search had beenconducted prior to petitioner's arrival and was recorded on a contraband receipt. Accordingly, weare unpersuaded that this technical defect requires that the [*2]determination be annulled (see Matter of Anderson vSelsky, 297 AD2d 867, 867 [2002]; Matter of Roman v Selsky, 270 AD2d 519, 520[2000]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]).

Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims that he was improperly denied theright to access certain documents and to present witness testimony, have been reviewed andfound to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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.