Matter of Beauchamp v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Beauchamp v. Annucci

2017 NY Slip Op 6584, 153 A.D.3d 1506, 59 N.Y.S.3d 918

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 21, 2017

Docket524278

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6584 (Matter of Beauchamp v. Annucci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Beauchamp v. Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 6584, 153 A.D.3d 1506, 59 N.Y.S.3d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

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 finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of two different drugs. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, along with the testimony at the hearing — including petitioner’s admission that he knew he smoked “something” — provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 916 [2017]; Matter of Cotterell v Taylor-Stewart, 145 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2016]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the correction officer who performed the urinalysis tests adequately explained, and a review of the misbehavior report, log book and urinalysis procedure forms confirms, that the discrepancies in the misbehavior report were clerical errors (see Matter of Rosario v Prack, 119 AD3d 1302, 1302 [2014]; Matter of Davis v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2012]). As such, we find that the validity of the test results was not undermined (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2015]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they are preserved, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of two different drugs. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, along with the testimony at the hearing — including petitioner’s admission that he knew he smoked “something” — provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 916 [2017]; Matter of Cotterell v Taylor-Stewart, 145 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2016]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the correction officer who performed the urinalysis tests adequately explained, and a review of the misbehavior report, log book and urinalysis procedure forms confirms, that the discrepancies in the misbehavior report were clerical errors (see Matter of Rosario v Prack, 119 AD3d 1302, 1302 [2014]; Matter of Davis v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2012]). As such, we find that the validity of the test results was not undermined (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2015]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they are preserved, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6584, 153 A.D.3d 1506, 59 N.Y.S.3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-beauchamp-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack