Cummings v. Goord
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Amadeo v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Lopez v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Accardi v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Matter of Daum v. Sipple (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- MatterofMoralesvFischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Morales v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Morales v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Alache v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Vento v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Carter v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Ameen v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Price v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Galdamez v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Vines v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Quezada v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- McKoy v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Palacio v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Black v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Barclay v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Charles v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
A search of petitioner’s cell was ordered after an anonymous note was received by a correction sergeant claiming that petitioner had a weapon secreted under his locker. During the search, a 5¼-inch piece of sharpened metal, which appeared to be a dust broom handle, was discovered under petitioner’s large locker. Petitioner was thereafter charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon, possessing an altered item and damaging state property. A tier III disciplinary hearing was held at which petitioner was found guilty of all charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the correction sergeant who received the anonymous note, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Vann v Goord, 308 AD2d 611, 612 [2003]; Matter of Folk v Goord, 307 AD2d 500, 501 [2003]). “Although other inmates had access to petitioner’s locker, a reasonable inference of possession arises when contraband is found in an area within an inmate’s control” (Matter of Alston v Goord, 4 AD3d 708, 709 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Shackleford v Goord, 3 AD 3d 622, 623 [2004]). Petitioner’s contention that the weapon must have been planted under his locker by someone presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Alston v Goord, supra at 709; Matter of Davis v Senkowski, 306 AD2d 778 [2003]). Petitioner’s remaining claims are unpreserved due to his failure to raise them at the hearing or on administrative appeal and, in any event, are unavailing.
Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.