Venegas v. Irvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Venegas v. Irvin

249 A.D.2d 982, 672 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5137

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 982 (Venegas v. Irvin) 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

Venegas v. Irvin, 249 A.D.2d 982, 672 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that there is insufficient evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of possessing drugs in violation of inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]). The misbehavior report, which states that a correction officer observed petitioner throw a marihuana cigarette on the floor of the prison yard, and the fact that the cigarette subsequently tested positive for marihuana constitute substantial evidence to support the determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130,139). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there is no requirement that additional tests be performed to confirm an initial positive NIK test result for marihuana (see, Matter of Darnell v Kulhmann, 145 AD2d 852, 853). The fact that the incident time indicated on the inmate misbehavior report is 9:00 p.m. and the testing of the marihuana was performed at 10:00 p.m. does not support petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was “prematurely concocted”. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that there is insufficient evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of possessing drugs in violation of inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]). The misbehavior report, which states that a correction officer observed petitioner throw a marihuana cigarette on the floor of the prison yard, and the fact that the cigarette subsequently tested positive for marihuana constitute substantial evidence to support the determination (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130,139). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there is no requirement that additional tests be performed to confirm an initial positive NIK test result for marihuana (see, Matter of Darnell v Kulhmann, 145 AD2d 852, 853). The fact that the incident time indicated on the inmate misbehavior report is 9:00 p.m. and the testing of the marihuana was performed at 10:00 p.m. does not support petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was “prematurely concocted”. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 982, 672 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venegas-v-irvin-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack