Wendell v. Annucci, 149 A.D.3d 1430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
Wendell v. Annucci, 149 A.D.3d 1430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Duchnowski v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
The detailed misbehavior report, supporting documentation, positive NARK II test results and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Karacostantakis v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2017]; Matter of Wendell v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1430, 1430-1431 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Laliveres v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, unusual incident report submitted for in camera review and the hearing testimony from the correction officer who discovered the contraband provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Wendell v Annucci, 149 AD3d 1430, 1430-1431 [2017]; see also 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii], [xv]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Wallace v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Substantial evidence, in the form of the detailed misbehavior report, hearing testimony and information considered by the Hearing Officer, does exist to support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing drugs (see Matter of Wendell v Annucci, 149 AD3d 1430, 1430-1431 [2017]; Matter of Austin v Annucci, 145 AD3d 1263, 1264 [2016]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of King v. Venettozzi (6×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
This Court has upheld guilty findings on prison disciplinary charges for possessing contraband and drugs where drug testing, consistent with proper procedures, positively identified a substance as synthetic marihuana (see Matter of Wendell v Annucci, 149 AD3d 1430, 1430-1431 [2017]; see generally 7 NYCRR 1010.5).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Truman v. Venettozzi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: compare · confidence medium
In addition, given the lack of testimony from correction officials indicating that appropriate testing procedures were followed as was needed to lay a foundation for admission of the test results, we find that that part of the determination finding him guilty of possessing a controlled substance is not supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 23 AD3d 724, 725 [2005]; Matter of Hernandez v Selsky, 306 AD2d 595, 596 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 514 [2003]; compare Matter of Wendell v Annucci, 149 AD3d 1430, 1430-1431 [2017]; Matter of McDermott v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1210, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Timothy J. Wendell
v.
Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 27, 2017.
149 A.D.3d 1430
Aarons, Devine, Lynch, Mulvey, Rose.
Cited by 7 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

A green leafy substance was found in petitioner’s cell that, after testing, was determined to be synthetic marihuana. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing contraband and possessing drugs. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal with a modified penalty, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report, testimony of its author who administered the drug tests and a master drug test trainer who confirmed that the proper testing procedures were followed, as well as the positive drug test reports, provide substantial evi[*1431] dence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Kaid v Prack, 140 AD3d 1511, 1511 [2016]). Petitioner’s claim that the present charges were barred by a prior disciplinary adjudication is without merit. Petitioner was previously charged with possessing the same contraband in another misbehavior report, but that charge was dismissed as duplica-tive of the charge in the misbehavior report in issue here. As the merits of petitioner’s guilt of possessing this contraband were not adjudicated in the prior hearing, neither principles of double jeopardy nor the doctrine of res judicata precluded this determination (see Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d 386, 389-390 [2007]; People v Vasquez, 89 NY2d 521, 527 [1997], cert denied 522 US 846 [1997]; cf. Matter of Gustus v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1034, 1034-1035 [2009]). Petitioner’s remaining claims, to the extent preserved, lack merit.

Lynch, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

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