Matter of Timmons v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Timmons v. Annucci

139 A.D.3d 1224, 29 N.Y.S.3d 832

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

DecidedMay 12, 2016

Docket521702

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1224 (Matter of Timmons 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 Timmons v. Annucci, 139 A.D.3d 1224, 29 N.Y.S.3d 832 (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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After petitioner’s urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of synthetic marihuana, he was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the disciplinary rules that prohibit the use of a controlled substance and the use of an intoxicant. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of using an intoxicant, and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive test results, related documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Jenkins v Annucci, 136 AD3d 1093 [2016]; Matter of Ralands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]). A review of the testing procedure forms and testimony of the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests establish the reliability of the positive test results and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, identity of the exact chemical compounds detected in the synthetic marihuana was not necessary. We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the right to call a witness as the Hearing Officer informed petitioner that representatives from the testing machine manufacturing company were unavailable to testify at the prison disciplinary hearing (see e.g. Matter of Alicea v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

*1225 McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Mulvey 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After petitioner’s urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of synthetic marihuana, he was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the disciplinary rules that prohibit the use of a controlled substance and the use of an intoxicant. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of using an intoxicant, and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive test results, related documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Jenkins v Annucci, 136 AD3d 1093 [2016]; Matter of Ralands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]). A review of the testing procedure forms and testimony of the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests establish the reliability of the positive test results and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, identity of the exact chemical compounds detected in the synthetic marihuana was not necessary. We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the right to call a witness as the Hearing Officer informed petitioner that representatives from the testing machine manufacturing company were unavailable to testify at the prison disciplinary hearing (see e.g. Matter of Alicea v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

*1225 McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Mulvey 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 1224, 29 N.Y.S.3d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-timmons-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack