RUGER v. GOORD (1998)

 The written misbehavior report, together with the testimony of its author and the photograph of the weapon found, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][14][i];  see, Matter of Bryant v. Coughlin, 77 N.Y.2d 642, 647, 569 N.Y.S.2d 582, 572 N.E.2d 23;  Matter of Perez v. Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 616, 499 N.Y.S.2d 659, 490 N.E.2d 526;  Matter of Mosley v. Goord, 242 A.D.2d 906, 662 N.Y.S.2d 882).   The contraband was found behind a wall molding in petitioner's cell, an area over which petitioner had control.   The presence of a weapon in an inmate's cell may give rise to a reasonable inference that the inmate knowingly possessed the weapon, even if others also had access to the area (see, Matter of Hawkins v. Coombe, 225 A.D.2d 1095, 1096, 639 N.Y.S.2d 634;  see also, Matter of Polite v. Goord, 248 A.D.2d 1017, 670 N.Y.S.2d 142;  Matter of Torres v. Coughlin, 213 A.D.2d 861, 624 N.Y.S.2d 67).  “[P]etitioner's denial of any knowledge of the weapon presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer” (Matter of Hawkins v. Coombe, supra, at 1096, 639 N.Y.S.2d 634;  see, Matter of Young v. Coombe, 227 A.D.2d 799, 801, 642 N.Y.S.2d 443;  Matter of Stoll v. Coughlin, 173 A.D.2d 998, 569 N.Y.S.2d 516).

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: