green
Positive treatment
Issue: admission of the positive testNY ↗
Issue: positive testNY ↗
Issue: admission exceptionNY ↗
Issue: documentary evidence hearingNY ↗
35.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Morales v. Venettozzi
Further, the record establishes that petitioner was provided with all of the mandated urinalysis testing documentation ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [4]; 1020.5 [a]) and, therefore, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the positive test results ( see Matter of Wade v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Matthews v. Annucci
Contrary to his claim, petitioner was not entitled to a copy of the instruction manual for the testing equipment ( see Matter of Morrishill v Prack , 120 AD3d 1474 , 1474 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 914 [2015], appeal dismissed 25 NY3d 948 [2015]), and the record further establishes that petitioner was provided with all the relevant testing documentation that was required to be disclosed ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [iv]; 1020.5 [a] [1]; Matter of Smith v Prack , 138 AD3d at 1287 ; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Marhone v. Venettozzi
As for petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer denied him a fair and impartial hearing, we have conducted a thorough review of the record and find no indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias ( see Matter of Wade v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer , 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Lyons v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the chain of custody of the specimen was properly established by the information contained on the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the officer who collected and tested petitioner’s specimen (see Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2015]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, there was an adequate foundation laid for the admission of the positive test results as the request for urinalysis form that was read into the record revealed an unbroken chain of custody in the handling of the sample (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d at 1377; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, there was an adequate foundation laid for the admission of the positive test results as the request for urinalysis form that was read into the record revealed an unbroken chain of custody in the handling of the sample (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d at 1377; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Dejesus v. Venettozzi
Further, the record reflects that the hearing was held in a fair and impartial manner, and there is nothing to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Hand v Greene, 118 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2014]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Streeter v. Annucci
Contrary to his claims, petitioner was provided with all of the testing documents required to be disclosed, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the test results and the specimen’s chain of custody was established through information contained in the request for urinalysis form (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; 7 NYCRR 1010.5).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Cotterell v. Taylor-Stewart
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we find no deficiencies in the chain of custody given that the correction officer who obtained the specimen that petitioner provided after the visit stated that it was either in his possession or secured in a locked room prior to testing, and the handling of the specimen was otherwise set forth on the request for urinalysis form (see Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2015]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Wade v. Annucci
Furthermore, the record demonstrates that petitioner was provided with all of the urinalysis testing documentation mandated by the pertinent regulations (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [iv]; 1020.5 [a]) and that, consequently, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the positive test results (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Neil v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ball v. Annucci
Turning to petitioner’s procedural claims, the record establishes that petitioner was provided with the documentation to which he was entitled and was afforded an opportunity to review it (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [iv]; [2] [iii]; 1020.5 [a]; Matter of Smith v Prack, 138 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2016]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Shepherd v. Annucci
Turning to petitioner’s procedural claims, the record establishes that petitioner was provided with all of the required testing documentation — including the required urinalysis procedure and test forms — in addition to pertinent logs and calibration reports and was afforded an opportunity to review a departmental memorandum regarding the testing of K2 and the testing officer’s training certificate (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [iv]; 1020.5 [a]; Matter of Smith v Prack, 138 AD3d 1286 , *1245 1287 [2016]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Johnson v. Annucci
Significantly, there is no indication that the Hearing Officer engaged in conduct suggestive of bias or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Williams v Prack, 130 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2015]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Allen v. Venettozzi
Furthermore, the record discloses that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and there is nothing to suggest that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Harding v Prack, 118 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Smith v. Prack
Moreover, the record establishes that petitioner was provided with all of the testing documentation required to be disclosed (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [¶] [1] [iv]; Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the positive tests results, as the required testing documentation was provided to petitioner and the chain of custody was established (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Neil v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez v. Annucci
The chain of custody of the specimen was adequately established through the information contained on the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the correction officer who collected the specimen (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Davis v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1154 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Annucci
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the positive tests results, as the required testing documentation was provided to petitioner and the chain of custody was established (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Neil v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez v. Annucci
The chain of custody of the specimen was adequately established through the information contained on the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the correction officer who collected the specimen (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Davis v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1154 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Joseph v. Prack
The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results, related documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Cane v Fischer, 115 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Shields v. Prack
The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results, related documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Cane v Fischer, 115 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2014]). *1015 Petitioner’s claim that prescribed medication caused the positive test results was contradicted by testimony from the correction officer who testified that the medication was not denoted on the manufacturer’s reactivity list of medications that would cause a false positive, thus creating a cred…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Roman v. Prack
A review of the record establishes that petitioner was given all relevant documentary evidence (see Matter of Paddyfote v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Jones v Venettozzi, 114 AD3d 980, 981 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Williams v. Prack
(2×)
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]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Kenneth Paddyfote III
v.
Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision
v.
Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 26, 2014.
Garry, Lynch, McCarthy, Peters, Stein.
Cited by 23 opinions | Published
[*1241] 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 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 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 and the determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Sutton v Prack, 107 AD3d 1250, 1250 [2013]; Matter of Coons v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2013]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the chain of custody of the sample was properly established through the information contained on the request for urinalysis form, as well as the testimony of the officers who collected and tested the sample (see Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913, 913 [2013]; Matter of Davis v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2012]). Moreover, the record discloses that petitioner was provided with all of the required testing documentation (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1]; 1020.5 [a] [1]) and that, consequently, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the positive test results (see Matter of Neil v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]; Matter of Johnson v Fischer, 73 AD3d 1369, 1370 [2010]). 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 Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177-1178 [2013]; Matter of Boatwright v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2005]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find that they are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.
Peters, PJ., Stein, McCarthy, Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur.Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.