Kennedy v. Coombe

236 A.D.2d 726, 654 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1458
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 726 (Kennedy v. Coombe) 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
Kennedy v. Coombe, 236 A.D.2d 726, 654 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit possession of escape paraphernalia and unauthorized possession of tools. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not based upon substantial evidence. We disagree. Presented in evidence at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was a detailed misbehavior report together with the testimony of the correction officer who had found five hacksaw blades secreted in a leg of petitioner’s bed. The blades themselves were also admitted in evidence. We conclude that there was substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Torres v Coughlin, 213 AD2d 861). Petitioner’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the presence of the blades concealed in his cell was insufficient to defeat the inference of possession that arises whenever a weapon is found in an area under an inmate’s control (see, Matter of Price v Coughlin, 195 AD2d 995). His testimony in this regard raised issues of credibility which were within the province of the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Patterson v Senkowski, 204 AD2d 831, 832). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 Spencer v. Martuscello
2025 NY Slip Op 06948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Colon v. Selsky
296 A.D.2d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Morris v. Selsky
264 A.D.2d 925 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Cabral v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility
261 A.D.2d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Fernandez v. Stinson
251 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 A.D.2d 726, 654 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1997.