Trisvan v. Fischer

71 A.D.3d 1253, 899 N.Y.S.2d 378
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1253 (Trisvan v. Fischer) 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
Trisvan v. Fischer, 71 A.D.3d 1253, 899 N.Y.S.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a search of the cellblock where petitioner was confined, a facility plumber found three pieces of a toothbrush secreted in an air vent behind petitioner’s cell. All of the pieces [1254]*1254had been sharpened and two had metal melted onto the ends. As a result of this discovery, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from possessing weapons or altered items. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Fuentes v Fischer, 56 AD3d 919, 920 [2008]; Matter of Fews v Goord, 54 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2008]). While petitioner claims that the items were not his and were placed there by someone else, the reasonable inference of possession arises from the testimony establishing that they were found in an area within petitioner’s control (see Matter of Hammond v Selsky, 28 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2006]; Matter of Ameen v Selsky, 25 AD3d 1059 [2006]). In view of this, we find no reason to disturb respondent’s determination.

Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, 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 Castillo v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 7922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Green v. Taylor
108 A.D.3d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Weight v. Fischer
87 A.D.3d 1211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Daughtry v. Bezio
84 A.D.3d 1623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.3d 1253, 899 N.Y.S.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trisvan-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2010.