Campbell v. Prack, 118 A.D.3d 1202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Campbell v. Prack, 118 A.D.3d 1202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Wiggins v. Venettozzi (nyappdiv, 2022-03-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Wiggins v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Given that the nurse visually identified the contraband as permitted and there were no positive contraband test results, there was no requirement to serve the contraband test forms on petitioner ( see 7 NYCRR 1010.5 [a], [b]; 1010.8 [a], [b]; Matter of Campbell v Prack , 118 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ortiz v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
The detailed misbehavior report, the testimony of its author and the documentary/photographic evidence contained in the record provide substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt ( see Matter of Campbell v Prack , 118 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2014]; Matter of Ferrer v Prack , 107 AD3d 1254, 1254 [2013]; Matter of Tafari v Selsky , 77 AD3d 991 , [*2]991 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 706 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Laliveres v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioner contends that the sublingual strips were not properly drug tested, the record establishes that the facility’s nurse visually identified the contraband as the prescription drug suboxone, and, therefore, further drug testing was unnecessary (see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [d], [e]; Matter of Bernard v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2017]; Matter of Rivera v Prack, 138 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2016]; Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Specifically, the correction officer who discovered the pills documented the chain of custody, and that correction officer and the pharmacist who was shown the pills for identification testified that the pills remained in the correction officer’s custody (see Matter of Williams v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2016]; Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Specifically, the correction officer who discovered the pills documented the chain of custody, and that correction officer and the pharmacist who was shown the pills for identification testified that the pills remained in the correction officer’s custody (see Matter of Williams v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2016]; Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Specifically, the correction officer who discovered the pills documented the chain of custody, and that correction officer and the pharmacist who was shown the pills for identification testified that the pills remained in the correction officer’s custody (see Matter of Williams v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2016]; Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
As to petitioner’s claim that he was denied certain drug testing documentation, given that the facility pharmacist visually identified the pills as suboxone, further drug testing was unnecessary and any possible prejudice to petitioner caused by the lack of documentation was negated (see Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2014]; Matter of Lindsay v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 920, 921 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
As to petitioner’s claim that he was denied certain drug testing documentation, given that the facility pharmacist visually identified the pills as suboxone, further drug testing was unnecessary and any possible prejudice to petitioner caused by the lack of documentation was negated (see Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2014]; Matter of Lindsay v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 920, 921 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Rivera v. Prack (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, related documentary evidence and testimony of both the correction officer who *1268 discovered the item and the facility nurse who identified it as suboxone provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2014]; Matter of Pedraza v Fischer, 65 AD3d 1434, 1435 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Figueroa v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, testimony of its author and the testing officer, positive drug test results and other related documentary evidence provided substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Miller v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, testimony of the sergeant who tested the pills, petitioner’s own testimony and the related documentary evidence provided substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Sanabria v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although the fact that a pharmacist “visually identified the pills” rendered it unnecessary to provide proof of chemical testing, foundational evidence regarding the chain of custody of those pills was still required (Matter of Campbell v Prack, 118 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2014]; see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [d], [e]; Matter of Lindsay v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 920, 921 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jarvis Campbell
v.
Albert Prack, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 19, 2014.
118 A.D.3d 1202
Clark, Lahtinen, Lynch, McCarthy, Rose.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a family reunion visit, petitioner’s possession bag was searched and a prescription medication bottle with his wife’s name on it was discovered. The bottle contained several pills, seven of which were identified by the facility nurse as Ionamin, a controlled substance. Petitioner was thereafter charged in a misbehavior report with lying, possession of unauthorized medication, possession of a prohibited item, possession of a controlled substance, smuggling and violating family reunion program procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of lying, but guilty of the remaining charges. That determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, related documentation and the hearing testimony of the report’s author and the facility nurse provided substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Myers v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1189, 1189 [2013], appeal dismissed 22 NY3d 912 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 301 AD2d 983, 984 [2003]). Petitioner’s claim[*1203] that he was improperly denied certain contraband drug testing documentation is also unavailing. The facility nurse visually identified the pills as Ionamin, making any further narcotic identification testing unnecessary (see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [d], [e]; Matter of Lindsay v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 920, 921 [1995]). The nurse’s testimony negated any possible prejudice to petitioner caused by the lack of drug testing forms (see Matter of Delvalle v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 812, 812 [1992]; 7 NYCRR 1010.5, 1010.8 [a]). Finally, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record established that a proper chain of custody of the pills was maintained (see Matter of Fragosa v Moore, 93 AD3d 979, 980 [2012]; Matter of Martino v Goord, 38 AD3d 958, 958-959 [2007]). Petitioner’s remaining claims have been examined and found to be without merit.

Lahtinen, J.P, McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.