From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooperider v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 21, 2015
128 A.D.3d 1266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

519876

05-21-2015

In the Matter of Wayne COOPERIDER, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Wayne Cooperider, Cape Vincent, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


Wayne Cooperider, Cape Vincent, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ.

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of possession of alcohol and possession of contraband. The charges stemmed from a search of petitioner's cube that revealed two containers of homemade alcohol. Although other inmates had access to the area where the containers were found, a reasonable inference of possession arises where, as here, the area where the contraband was discovered is within petitioner's control (see Matter of Velez v. Prack, 122 A.D.3d 1041, 1041–1042, 994 N.Y.S.2d 740 [2014] ; Matter of Sweet v. Poole, 48 A.D.3d 867, 868, 850 N.Y.S.2d 721 [2008] ). This inference, together with the misbehavior report and petitioner's testimony at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Starling v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 123 A.D.3d 1195, 1196, 996 N.Y.S.2d 403 [2014] ; Matter of Sweet v. Poole, 48 A.D.3d at 868, 850 N.Y.S.2d 721 ; Matter of Vento v. Goord, 41 A.D.3d 1123, 1123, 840 N.Y.S.2d 172 [2007] ). Furthermore, petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to call witnesses is not preserved for our review given his failure to object at the hearing (see Matter of Robinson v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 981, 982, 994 N.Y.S.2d 477 [2014] ). In any event, his request for character witnesses was properly denied (see Matter of Elias v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1193, 1194, 987 N.Y.S.2d 517 [2014] ).

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Cooperider v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 21, 2015
128 A.D.3d 1266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Cooperider v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Wayne COOPERIDER, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: May 21, 2015

Citations

128 A.D.3d 1266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
128 A.D.3d 1266
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 4377

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Fischer

The record discloses that the Hearing Officer made a number of attempts to contact this officer by telephone…

Land v. Annucci

Both witnesses refused to testify based on their claims that they were not present when the altercation…