From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Figueroa v. Lacy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 8, 1999
260 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 8, 1999

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


Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits inmates from possessing weapons. Petitioner challenges the determination contending that it is not based upon substantial evidence. We disagree. An X ray of petitioner's rectal cavity revealed a metal object resembling a razor blade wrapped in a sheath. Although no weapon was ever found, the author of the misbehavior report and another correction officer testified that petitioner admitted having a razor blade secreted in his rectum. This evidence, together with the inferences to be drawn therefrom, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt ( see, e.g., Matter of Phillips v. Goord, 252 A.D.2d 642; Matter of Caraway v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 675, 676). Petitioner's remaining contention of Hearing Officer bias has not been preserved for our review and we decline to address it ( see, Matter of Holloway v. Edwards, 253 A.D.2d 928, 929).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Figueroa v. Lacy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 8, 1999
260 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Figueroa v. Lacy

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALEX FIGUEROA, Petitioner v. PETER J. LACY, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Apr 8, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 721

Citing Cases

Williams v. Selsky

Remittal for a redetermination of the penalty is not necessary, however, as no loss of good time was imposed…

Matter of Spulka v. Selsky

The assistant's failure to produce irrelevant documentation does not amount to inadequate assistance (see,…