Matter of Wiggins v. Venettozzi, 2022 NY Slip Op 01494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · Go Syfert
Matter of Wiggins v. Venettozzi, 2022 NY Slip Op 01494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Guerrero v. Martuscello (nyappdiv, 2026-03-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Guerrero v. Martuscello
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Petitioner's failure to challenge the timeliness of the hearing therefore renders his contention unpreserved ( see Matter of Pleasant v Shope , 233 AD3d 1156 , 1158 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Wiggins v Venettozzi , 203 AD3d 1362, 1363 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Lewis v Fischer , 101 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [3d Dept 2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ortiz v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
The version of Directive No. 4938 that was in effect at the time of the search of petitioner's cell and the identification of the contraband in question required that the contraband "shall be inspected at the facility pharmacy for possible identification or, if appropriate pharmacy staff are not available, with the assistance of the nursing staff." Inasmuch as a facility pharmacist testified that he identified the contraband recovered from petitioner's cell as buprenorphine from the visual markings on the strips, we find that the proper identification procedures were followed and no further dr…
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Then v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, the regulation delegates the task of identifying substances to certain designated professionals and, "[i]f the substance has not been conclusively identified at the facility pharmacy," the identification must be made using specified narcotics identification kits (NIK and NARK II) (7 NYCRR 1010.4 [e]; see 7 NYCRR 1010.2). [FN1] At the prison disciplinary hearing, it was established that the suspected substance was not subjected to chemical testing, nor was there any evidence indicating that facility pharmacy or nursing staff inspected or visually identified the substance ( compare Matter …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matter of Wiggins
v.
Venettozzi
533084.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 10, 2022.
2022 NY Slip Op 01494
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Matter of Wiggins v Venettozzi (2022 NY Slip Op 01494)
Matter of Wiggins v Venettozzi
2022 NY Slip Op 01494
Decided on March 10, 2022
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered:March 10, 2022

533084

[*1]In the Matter of Dwayne Wiggins, Petitioner,

v

Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.


Calendar Date:February 4, 2022
Before:Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ.

Dwayne Wiggins, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.



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.

During a pat frisk of petitioner by a correction officer, four orange sublingual strips were found hidden in his coat, which were turned over to a correction officer who was a certified NARK II tester, and identified by the facility nurse as sublingual suboxone. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug possession, possessing contraband and smuggling. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged, and the determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, hearing testimony of the correction officers who discovered and transported the contraband, documentary evidence and the memorandum from the facility nurse who identified it as suboxone provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Laliveres v Annucci, 156 AD3d 1106, 1106 [2017]; Matter of Rivera v Prack, 138 AD3d 1267, 1267-1268 [2016]). Petitioner's contention that the strips were not properly drug tested lacks merit, as the record establishes that the facility 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 Laliveres v Annucci, 156 AD3d at 1106; Matter of Bernard v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2017]; Matter of Lindsay v Coughlin, 211 AD2d 920, 921 [1995]). Petitioner's claims that the strips were planted in retaliation for him filing grievances, which were found to be without merit, was fully explored at the hearing and created a credibility issue that the Hearing Officer resolved against him (see Matter of Williams v Venettozzi, 189 AD3d 1877, 1879 [2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 902 [2021]). 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]). Finally, petitioner's challenge to the timeliness of the hearing, for which extensions were granted, was not raised at the hearing and is, therefore, unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Bonds v Annucci, 193 AD3d 1204, 1206 [2021]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent preserved for our review, also lack merit.

Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ., concur.

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