At page 1177 Reviewing disciplinary finding based on drug test evidence13 citing casesProceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of…
- Matter of Horton v. Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 5553 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).publishedHowever, as the charges were based upon the contraband recovered as the result of the strip search that occurred prior to petitioner being placed on contraband watch, the requested testimony was properly denied as irrelevant ( see Matter o…
- Matter of Rosales v. Annucci, 151 A.D.3d 1748 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2017).publishedThe employee assistant made the requisite efforts to obtain documents and witnesses (see Matter of Perez v Fischer, 62 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2009]), and petitioner’s requests for documents that were collateral and “irrevelant to the charge [s]…
- Matter of Reyes v. Keyser, 150 A.D.3d 1502 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).publishedFinally, petitioner was not denied witnesses regarding videotaping in the facility, as the requested testimony would be irrevelant as it involved an incident that occurred in another part of the facility that was not a subject of this hear…
- Matter of Cotterell v. Taylor-Stewart, 145 A.D.3d 1245 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedFurthermore, the Hearing Officer’s denial of certain witnesses whose testimony would have been irrevelant does not show that the Hearing Officer was biased, nor is there anything in the record to establish that the determination flowed fro…
- Matter of Wade v. Annucci, 144 A.D.3d 1294 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedNor are we persuaded that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing as there is no indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d…
- Matter of Foster v. Prack, 144 A.D.3d 1287 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedThe proffered testimony of inmate witnesses with regard to their personal experience with drug-related testing, as well as documentation in connection with another inmate’s *1288 disciplinary hearing, were irrevelant as to whether petition…
- Matter of Jones v. Fischer, 138 A.D.3d 1294 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedWith regard to petitioner’s requests to call as witnesses certain named and unnamed persons who were not involved in his drug testing, in order to establish that his grievance was common knowledge and that the subjects of the grievance wer…
- Matter of Williams v. Prack, 130 A.D.3d 1123 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).publishedFurthermore, 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; Matt…
- Rosario v. Prack, 119 A.D.3d 1302 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the test, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see M…
- MatterofRosariovPrack, No. 517337 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't July 31, 2014).publishedThe misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the test, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see M…
Show 1 more citing case
- Paddyfote v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published Furthermore, we are not persuaded that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing as there is no indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fisch…
v.
Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision
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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officers who collected and tested petitioner’s urine specimen, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Johnson v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1007, 1007 [2013]; Matter of Hyzer v Fischer, 104 AD3d 983, 983 [2013]). Petitioner seeks to challenge the evidence upon which the determination is based by claiming that he provided two urine specimens, but that only one was used to support the charge. However, this claim was refuted by the collecting officer, who stated that the first specimen had to be discarded because petitioner contaminated it by pouring water in the specimen cup. The conflict in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Coates v Fischer, 108 AD3d 997, 998 [2013]; Matter of Turner v Fischer, 93 AD3d 987, 988 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 806 [2012]). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied a correction officer and a fellow inmate as witnesses, given that their proposed testimony pertained to a collateral matter and was irrelevant to the charge at issue (see Matter of Blocker v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Matter of Mobayed v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2011]). Petitioner’s further assertion that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing is unavailing, as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 785 [2012];[*1178] Matter of Bornstorff v Bezio, 73 AD3d 1397, 1398 [2010]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and are either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.
Peters, EJ., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.