Rodriguez v. McGinnisRodriguez v. McGinnis
During a search of petitioner‘s cell, a correction officer found
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 AD3d 792, 792 [2004]; Matter of Mathieu v Giambruno, 9 AD3d 632, 633 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 609 [2004]; see also Matter of Charles v Selsky, 13 AD3d 861, 862 [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 AD3d 973, 974 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 713 [2005]; Matter of Miller v Goord, 2 AD3d 928, 930 [2003]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.