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: Carlos RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael McGINNIS, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.
During a search of petitioner's cell, a correction officer found two needles, three tattoo patterns and a state pen which had been emptied and filled with blue ink. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing altered property and tattoo equipment. He was found guilty of these charges following a tier II disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Initially, we reject petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting respondent's finding that petitioner possessed altered property. At the hearing, petitioner did not dispute the fact that he possessed a state pen filled with blue ink when only black pens were provided to inmates. Although he explained that another inmate had given him the pen, that inmate denied doing so. The misbehavior report, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony, provide substantial evidence supporting petitioner's guilt (see Matter of Morgan v. Goord, 10 A.D.3d 792, 792, 781 N.Y.S.2d 812 [2004]; Matter of Mathieu v. Giambruno, 9 A.D.3d 632, 633, 779 N.Y.S.2d 659 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 609, 786 N.Y.S.2d 812, 820 N.E.2d 291 [2004]; see also Matter of Charles v. Selsky, 13 A.D.3d 861, 862, 785 N.Y.S.2d 798 [2004] ). As to petitioner's assertion that he was improperly denied the right to present documentary evidence consisting of two greeting card pattern books, we also find it to be unavailing. The source of the patterns that petitioner used for tattooing purposes was irrelevant to the charges at hand (see e.g. Matter of Jackson v. Goord, 18 A.D.3d 973, 974, 794 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 713, 806 N.Y.S.2d 163, 840 N.E.2d 132 [Oct. 25, 2005]; Matter of Miller v. Goord, 2 A.D.3d 928, 930, 767 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2003] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: December 01, 2005
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)