Cobb v. Yelich, 118 A.D.3d 1235 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Cobb v. Yelich, 118 A.D.3d 1235 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Watson v. Gardner (nyappdiv, 2017-12-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Watson v. Gardner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The record reflects that such testimony would be redundant, given the testimony of the Rastafarian state chaplain and the facility Rastafarian facilitator (see Matter of Osborne v Venettozzi, 141 AD3d 990, 991 [2016]; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Baxton v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as another inmate witness testified regarding this incident, the requested testimony would have been redundant (see Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]; Mat *1237 ter of Burr v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1538, 1538-1539 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 811 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jenkins v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Moreover, the documentary evidence and testimony from the correction officer who performed the urinalysis established the chain of custody and adherence to proper testing procedures (see Matter of Roman v Prack, 133 AD3d at 960 ; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jenkins v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Moreover, the documentary evidence and testimony from the correction officer who performed the urinalysis established the chain of custody and adherence to proper testing procedures (see Matter of Roman v Prack, 133 AD3d at 960 ; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the hearing testimony, provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of using a controlled substance (see Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]; Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913 [2013]) and using an intoxicant (see Matter of Ralands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the hearing testimony, provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of using a controlled substance (see Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]; Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913 [2013]) and using an intoxicant (see Matter of Ralands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Richardson v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the record discloses that petitioner was permitted to call numerous inmate witnesses to testify that he was not involved in the incident, and we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of additional inmate witnesses whose testimony would have been redundant (see Matter of White v Fischer, 121 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2014]; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Williams v. Prack
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Cobb v Yelich, 118 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Booker v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Nothing in the record suggests that the failure to immediately refrigerate and/or freeze petitioner's urine sample resulted in a false positive ( see Matter of Hyzer v Fischer , 104 AD3d 983, 983 [2013]; Matter of Peterson v Goord , 268 AD2d 739, 739 [2000]), and, in view of the correction officer's testimony and the corresponding entries on the chain of custody form, the record supports the Hearing Officer's conclusion that petitioner's sample was "maintained in a secure location at all times" ( Matter of Odome v Goord , 8 AD3d 921, 922 [2004]; see Matter of Ellison v Goord , 274 AD2d 800, 80…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Kenneth Cobb
v.
Bruce Yelich, as Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 26, 2014.
118 A.D.3d 1235
Clark, Garry, Lahtinen, McCarthy, Peters.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

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

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the[*1236] presence of THC. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis results, related documentation and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination (see Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913, 913 [2013]; Matter of Sutton v Prack, 107 AD3d 1250, 1250 [2013]). Further, the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the correction officers involved established that petitioner’s urine sample was properly secured and that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the urine sample (see Matter of Polite v Goord, 22 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2005]; Matter of Saif’Ul’Bait v Goord, 15 AD3d 703, 704-705 [2005]). We reject petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the testimony of certain witnesses, as such testimony would have been redundant (see Matter of Cody v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1651, 1651-1652 [2011]; Matter of Warren v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1466, 1467 [2009]). Petitioner’s remaining claims, including his assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased against him, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, McCarthy, Garry and Clark, JJ., concur.

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