Cummings v. Goord

10 A.D.3d 748, 781 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10836
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 16, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 748 (Cummings v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cummings v. Goord, 10 A.D.3d 748, 781 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[749]*749Proceeding 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.

A search of petitioner’s cell was ordered after an anonymous note was received by a correction sergeant claiming that petitioner had a weapon secreted under his locker. During the search, a 5¼-inch piece of sharpened metal, which appeared to be a dust broom handle, was discovered under petitioner’s large locker. Petitioner was thereafter charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon, possessing an altered item and damaging state property. A tier III disciplinary hearing was held at which petitioner was found guilty of all charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the correction sergeant who received the anonymous note, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Vann v Goord, 308 AD2d 611, 612 [2003]; Matter of Folk v Goord, 307 AD2d 500, 501 [2003]). “Although other inmates had access to petitioner’s locker, a reasonable inference of possession arises when contraband is found in an area within an inmate’s control” (Matter of Alston v Goord, 4 AD3d 708, 709 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Shackleford v Goord, 3 AD 3d 622, 623 [2004]). Petitioner’s contention that the weapon must have been planted under his locker by someone presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Alston v Goord, supra at 709; Matter of Davis v Senkowski, 306 AD2d 778 [2003]). Petitioner’s remaining claims are unpreserved due to his failure to raise them at the hearing or on administrative appeal and, in any event, are unavailing.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Daum v. Sipple
2021 NY Slip Op 05064 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
MatterofMoralesvFischer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Morales v. Fischer
119 A.D.3d 1298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Alache v. Fischer
91 A.D.3d 1240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Amadeo v. Goord
49 A.D.3d 1121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Carter v. Goord
45 A.D.3d 1077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Vento v. Goord
41 A.D.3d 1123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Accardi v. Goord
34 A.D.3d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Galdamez v. Taylor
31 A.D.3d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Price v. Goord
29 A.D.3d 1203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Lopez v. Selsky
28 A.D.3d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ameen v. Selsky
25 A.D.3d 1059 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
McKoy v. Goord
23 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Quezada v. Goord
19 A.D.3d 964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Vines v. Goord
19 A.D.3d 951 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Charles v. Selsky
13 A.D.3d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Barclay v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
13 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Palacio v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
12 A.D.3d 994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Black v. Goord
12 A.D.3d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 A.D.3d 748, 781 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-goord-nyappdiv-2004.