Monje v. Geoghegan, 108 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Monje v. Geoghegan, 108 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Singh v. Annucci (nyappdiv, 2019-02-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Singh v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Accordingly, petitioner's present claim — the he was denied or received incomplete documentary evidence — is unpreserved for our review ( see Matter of Rodriguez v Annucci , 136 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2016]; Matter of Monje v Geoghegan , 108 AD3d 957, 957-958 [2013]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Brown v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Facility , 153 AD3d 1471 , 1473 n [2017]; Matter of Monje v Geoghegan , 108 AD3d 957, 957-958 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of LaGrave v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Petitioner's assertion that she was unaware that the tobacco contained any type of controlled substance presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Monje v Geoghegan , 108 AD3d 957, 957 [2013]; Matter of Shorter v Prack , 100 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Medina v. Five Points Corr. Facility
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of refusing a direct order and possessing narcotics; petition granted to that extent, the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is directed to expunge all references to the charge of refusing a direct order from petitioner’s institutional record, and matter remitted to the Commissioner for a redetermination of the penalty on the remaining violations and for a new hearing on the charge of possessing narcotics; and, as so modified, confirmed. * Petitioner’s chal…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Frantz v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s challenge to the foundation of the positive test results — due to the fact that the sample identification numbers entered on the two test result forms differed by one number — is unpreserved for our review in light of petitioner’s failure to raise this issue at the hearing (see Matter of Monje v Geoghegan, 108 AD3d 957, 957-958 [2013]; Matter of Ortiz v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s denial of any misconduct presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Monje v Geoghegan, 108 AD3d 957, 957 [2013]; Matter of McFarlane v Fischer, 65 AD3d 769, 771 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s denial of any misconduct presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Monje v Geoghegan, 108 AD3d 957, 957 [2013]; Matter of McFarlane v Fischer, 65 AD3d 769, 771 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guerrero v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who performed the drug testing, and positive test results with supporting documentation provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Monje v Geoghegan, 108 AD3d 957, 957 [2013]; Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guerrero v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who performed the drug testing, and positive test results with supporting documentation provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Monje v Geoghegan, 108 AD3d 957, 957 [2013]; Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jorge Monje
v.
Michael P. Geoghegan, as Deputy Superintendent of Security, Watertown Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 18, 2013.
108 A.D.3d 957
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a search of petitioner’s locker, a correction officer found a ham tin containing three prescription bags and an unidentified substance in the finger of a plastic glove, the latter of which subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing unauthorized medication and possessing a controlled substance. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing that followed, petitioner was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance and not guilty of possessing unauthorized medication, and a penalty was imposed. That determination was affirmed upon petitioner’s administrative appeal, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). Petitioner’s denial that he possessed drugs presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Xao He Lu v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 72 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2010]). To the extent that petitioner challenges the foundation for the drug test results, contends that he was not provided with the appropriate testing documents or asserts that the Hearing Officer improperly admitted double hearsay, petitioner did not raise these issues at the hearing, thereby rendering them[*958] unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Ortiz v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2009]; Matter of Lopez v Goord, 49 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]; Matter of Horton v Allard, 25 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

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