| Matter of Amadeo v Goord |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02727 [49 AD3d 1121] |
| March 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Gilbert Amadeo, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitionerguilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
In response to confidential information received from two separate sources, petitioner's cubewas packed up and frisked, during the course of which a correction officer found two sharpenedpieces of metal secreted in the leg of a chair determined to belong to petitioner. As a result,petitioner was charged with, insofar as is relevant to this proceeding, possession of a weapon.Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the weapon charge and apenalty was imposed. Although the penalty was modified upon administrative appeal, theunderlying determination was otherwise affirmed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the misbehavior report, together with thetestimony of the correction officer who packed up and frisked petitioner's cube and the correctionsergeant who received the detailed and credible confidential information, as well as theconfidential information itself, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see Matter of Cummings v Goord, 10AD3d 748, 749 [2004]). Although petitioner's access to the chair may [*2]not have been exclusive, a reasonable inference of possession arisesfrom the fact that the weapon was discovered in petitioner's cube and, hence, in an area withinpetitioner's control (see Matter ofParrilla v Selsky, 32 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 803 [2007];Matter of Cummings v Goord, 10 AD3d at 749). Petitioner's remaining contentions,including his assertions that his prehearing confinement deprived him of due process and that thepenalty imposed was unduly harsh, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.