Matter of Corp v. Venettozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Corp v. Venettozzi

139 A.D.3d 1228, 29 N.Y.S.3d 834

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

DecidedMay 12, 2016

Docket521744

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1228 (Matter of Corp v. Venettozzi) 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 Corp v. Venettozzi, 139 A.D.3d 1228, 29 N.Y.S.3d 834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with using drugs after his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, urinalysis test results and related documentation and the testimony of the testing officer provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1380, 1380-1381 [2015]; Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1376, 1376 [2015]). With regard to petitioner’s contentions that an incorrect identification number appeared on the testing documentation, the testimony of the testing officer adequately explained that the error in the last digit of petitioner’s identification number was a typographical error, which he corrected on the documentation (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]). Insofar as petitioner claims that the sample tested was not his, the testing officer confirmed that he had collected the urine sample from petitioner, which petitioner admitted providing, and the officer’s testimony established the chain of custody and positive results for that sample and that *1229 it belonged to petitioner (see id.; see also Matter of Jenkins v Annucci, 136 AD3d 1093, 1093 [2016]; Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d at 1381). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and determined to lack merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons, 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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with using drugs after his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, urinalysis test results and related documentation and the testimony of the testing officer provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1380, 1380-1381 [2015]; Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1376, 1376 [2015]). With regard to petitioner’s contentions that an incorrect identification number appeared on the testing documentation, the testimony of the testing officer adequately explained that the error in the last digit of petitioner’s identification number was a typographical error, which he corrected on the documentation (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]). Insofar as petitioner claims that the sample tested was not his, the testing officer confirmed that he had collected the urine sample from petitioner, which petitioner admitted providing, and the officer’s testimony established the chain of custody and positive results for that sample and that *1229 it belonged to petitioner (see id.; see also Matter of Jenkins v Annucci, 136 AD3d 1093, 1093 [2016]; Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d at 1381). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and determined to lack merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 1228, 29 N.Y.S.3d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-corp-v-venettozzi-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack