Fugate v. Goord

277 A.D.2d 626, 715 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11322
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 626 (Fugate 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
Fugate v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 626, 715 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—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.

[627]*627Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the possession of a weapon after a search of his cell revealed a 6V2-inch metal shank in a box labeled Domeboro found hidden behind a locker. The record reveals that petitioner had been issued the Domeboro medication three months earlier. The fact that petitioner did not have exclusive control over the area where the weapon was found is insufficient to defeat the inference of impropriety (see, Matter of Mendez v Jones, 176 AD2d 423). Significantly, petitioner’s cellmate had only been in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services for two weeks. Furthermore, petitioner testified that his friendship with a homosexual inmate had caused a rift with other inmate friends. Given this evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner was in possession of the weapon (see, Matter of Tarbell v Goord, 263 AD2d 563; Matter of Scott v Coombe, 238 AD2d 648). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, 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

Kotler v. Goord
17 A.D.3d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Nieves v. Goord
2 A.D.3d 1173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Clark v. Selsky
302 A.D.2d 840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Marcus v. Goord
287 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 626, 715 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fugate-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.