Matter of Roman v. Prack

133 A.D.3d 959, 18 N.Y.S.3d 568
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 2015
Docket520346
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 959 (Matter of Roman v. Prack) 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 Roman v. Prack, 133 A.D.3d 959, 18 N.Y.S.3d 568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

*960 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.

After petitioner’s urine twice tested positive for the presence of synthetic marihuana, he was charged in a misbehavior report with use of an intoxicant. 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 test results and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Harriott v Annucci, 131 AD3d 754, 754 [2015]). A review of the record establishes that petitioner was given all relevant documentary evidence (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Jones v Venettozzi, 114 AD3d 980, 981 [2014]). Furthermore, the chain of custody and adherence to proper testing procedures were established through the documentary evidence and testimony from the correction officer who performed the urinalysis tests (see Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913, 913 [2013]). To the extent that petitioner asserts that he was improperly charged with use of an intoxicant, we find his contention to be unpersuasive (see Matter of Rolands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, 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

Related

Matter of Austin v. Annucci
145 A.D.3d 1263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Wade v. Annucci
144 A.D.3d 1294 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Ball v. Annucci
144 A.D.3d 1300 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Shepherd v. Annucci
142 A.D.3d 1244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Williams v. Annucci
141 A.D.3d 1062 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Belle v. Prack
140 A.D.3d 1509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Bailey v. Prack
140 A.D.3d 1508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Rivera v. Venettozzi
138 A.D.3d 1293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Jenkins v. Annucci
136 A.D.3d 1093 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 A.D.3d 959, 18 N.Y.S.3d 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-roman-v-prack-nyappdiv-2015.