Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Luis SIERRA, Petitioner, v. NYC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Warden, Rikers Island Correction Facility, Respondent.
Determination of respondent New York City Department of Correction, dated September 29, 2006, finding petitioner guilty of possessing a contraband weapon, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County [Thomas Farber, J.], entered December 15, 2006) dismissed, without costs.
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 A.D.2d 563, 693 N.Y.S.2d 262 [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 access 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.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 11, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)