Rocha v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rocha v. Goord

284 A.D.2d 759, 728 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6610

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 759 (Rocha 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

Rocha v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 759, 728 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplin[760]*760ary rule against possessing weapons after a routine search uncovered an 8V2-inch, sharpened metal rod secreted in the foot of his bed. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the detailed misbehavior report indicating that the weapon was found in petitioner’s cell provides substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). The fact that the weapon was found within petitioner’s cell where he had resided for two months gives rise to a reasonable inference that he was in possession of the weapon (see, Matter of Francois v Goord, 275 AD2d 852, 852-853).

Furthermore, a review of the record belies petitioner’s assertion that he required a Spanish-speaking interpreter in order to participate in the hearing (see, Matter of Baez v Goord, 261 AD2d 741; Matter of Polanco v Coughlin, 196 AD2d 943). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including the claim that he was denied the right to present a relevant witness and his challenge to the search procedure, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Mugglin 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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplin[760]*760ary rule against possessing weapons after a routine search uncovered an 8V2-inch, sharpened metal rod secreted in the foot of his bed. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the detailed misbehavior report indicating that the weapon was found in petitioner’s cell provides substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966). The fact that the weapon was found within petitioner’s cell where he had resided for two months gives rise to a reasonable inference that he was in possession of the weapon (see, Matter of Francois v Goord, 275 AD2d 852, 852-853).

Furthermore, a review of the record belies petitioner’s assertion that he required a Spanish-speaking interpreter in order to participate in the hearing (see, Matter of Baez v Goord, 261 AD2d 741; Matter of Polanco v Coughlin, 196 AD2d 943). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including the claim that he was denied the right to present a relevant witness and his challenge to the search procedure, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 759, 728 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocha-v-goord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack