Sierra v. NYC Department of Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sierra v. NYC Department of Correction

49 A.D.3d 337, 853 N.Y.2d 80

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 337 (Sierra v. NYC Department of Correction) 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

Sierra v. NYC Department of Correction, 49 A.D.3d 337, 853 N.Y.2d 80 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The hearing officer’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the misbehavior report and hearing testimony. It is undisputed that a correction officer saw an object in a vent in petitioner’s cell, which was pushed so far back the officer was unable to retrieve it. That the officer was ultimately able to retrieve the weapon from the back end of the vent in the locked closet next door to petitioner’s cell does not undermine the finding that the contraband was secreted within petitioner’s control, especially since there was a clothesline attached to it (see Matter of Tarbell v Goord, 263 AD2d 563 [1999]). The fact that inmates had no access to the locked closet further supports a reasonable inference that the contraband was secreted from within petitioner’s cell, and that the clothesline was attached to make it retrievable by the person occupying the cell. Under the circumstances, it is unavailing that the officer was able to ac[338]*338cess the weapon from the locked closet rather than from petitioner’s cell, particularly since it is clear that he had no prior knowledge of the nature of the object, nor would he have been aware how it was placed in the vent. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

The hearing officer’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the misbehavior report and hearing testimony. It is undisputed that a correction officer saw an object in a vent in petitioner’s cell, which was pushed so far back the officer was unable to retrieve it. That the officer was ultimately able to retrieve the weapon from the back end of the vent in the locked closet next door to petitioner’s cell does not undermine the finding that the contraband was secreted within petitioner’s control, especially since there was a clothesline attached to it (see Matter of Tarbell v Goord, 263 AD2d 563 [1999]). The fact that inmates had no access to the locked closet further supports a reasonable inference that the contraband was secreted from within petitioner’s cell, and that the clothesline was attached to make it retrievable by the person occupying the cell. Under the circumstances, it is unavailing that the officer was able to ac[338]*338cess the weapon from the locked closet rather than from petitioner’s cell, particularly since it is clear that he had no prior knowledge of the nature of the object, nor would he have been aware how it was placed in the vent. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 337, 853 N.Y.2d 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sierra-v-nyc-department-of-correction-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack