Matter of Williams v. Prack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Williams v. Prack

130 A.D.3d 1123, 11 N.Y.S.3d 750

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 2, 2015·No. 519942·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding followed.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]). Although petitioner maintained that the ibuprofen he was prescribed following dental surgery produced a false positive test result, this was refuted by the testimony of a number of witnesses, the most significant of *1124 which was that of a specialist from the manufacturer of the urinalysis testing system, who stated that no amount of ibuprofen could cause a false positive result for cannabinoids (see Matter of Almonte v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 709 [2010]; Matter of Madison v Selsky, 2 AD3d 934 [2003]). Furthermore, we have reviewed the record and, contrary to petitioner’s claim, do not find that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d at 1241; Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177-1178 [2013]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that he was improperly denied witnesses, and find them to be unpersuasive.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Lynch, 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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding followed.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]). Although petitioner maintained that the ibuprofen he was prescribed following dental surgery produced a false positive test result, this was refuted by the testimony of a number of witnesses, the most significant of *1124 which was that of a specialist from the manufacturer of the urinalysis testing system, who stated that no amount of ibuprofen could cause a false positive result for cannabinoids (see Matter of Almonte v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 709 [2010]; Matter of Madison v Selsky, 2 AD3d 934 [2003]). Furthermore, we have reviewed the record and, contrary to petitioner’s claim, do not find that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d at 1241; Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177-1178 [2013]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that he was improperly denied witnesses, and find them to be unpersuasive.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Matter of Williams v. Prack, 130 A.D.3d 1123, 11 N.Y.S.3d 750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

130 A.D.3d 1123 (Matter of Williams v. Prack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related