Matter of Eddie Gonzalez v Glenn S. Goord

Annotate this Case
Matter of Gonzalez v Goord 2003 NY Slip Op 19843 [2 AD3d 1173] December 24, 2003 Appellate Division, Third Department As corrected through Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 25, 2004

In the Matter of Eddie Gonzalez, Petitioner,
v
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting possession of controlled substances and smuggling after a correction officer observed him transferring an envelope on a drag line running from his cell to that of another inmate. Subsequent laboratory testing identified the contents of the envelope as marihuana.

Substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting officer who wrote the report after having observed the conduct in question (see Matter of Powell v Goord, 293 AD2d 846 [2002]). Additional evidence was provided by the laboratory test results performed on the envelope's contents that were positive for the presence of marihuana (see Matter of Cruz v Selsky, 288 AD2d 517, 518 [2001]). The exculpatory testimony given by petitioner and his former cellmate presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Knight v Selsky, 297 AD2d 845, 846 [2002]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his allegation of hearing officer bias, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.