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.
IN RE: Demetriss EVERETT, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing alcoholic beverages after a routine search of his cell disclosed a garbage bag and container filled with fermenting juice and bread. Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the misbehavior report and supporting memorandum, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Sanchez v. Leonardo, 242 A.D.2d 798, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1014). Having found the liquid in petitioner's cell in a locker, a reasonable inference could be drawn that petitioner possessed the liquid even though he was not in his cell at the time of the search (see, e.g., Matter of Scott v. Coombe, 238 A.D.2d 648, 656 N.Y.S.2d 953). Furthermore, because the nature of alcoholic beverages is a matter of common knowledge, the correction officers' observations that the liquid substance looked and smelled like alcohol rendered scientific testing of the liquid unnecessary (see, Matter of Sanchez v. Leonardo, supra ). Equally unavailing is petitioner's claim that he was denied relevant documentation relating to the authorization of the search of his cell (see, Matter of Tankleff v. Coughlin, 210 A.D.2d 815, 816, 620 N.Y.S.2d 578). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims of Hearing Officer bias, that a sample of the liquid should have been produced at the hearing and that his penalty was excessive, are either unpreserved for our review or without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 10, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)