Matter of Roman v. Prack , 18 N.Y.S.3d 568 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: November 5, 2015 520346 ________________________________ In the Matter of JOSE A. ROMAN, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent. ________________________________ Calendar Date: September 22, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ. __________ Jose A. Roman, Brocton, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent. __________ 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 -2- 520346 support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Harriot v Annucci, 131 AD3d 754, 754 [2015]). A review of the record establishes that petitioner was given all relevant documentary evidence (see Matter of Paddyforte 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 Ralands 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. ENTER: Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

Document Info

Docket Number: 520346

Citation Numbers: 133 A.D.3d 959, 18 N.Y.S.3d 568

Filed Date: 11/5/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023