testimony presented hearing in New York

2014Contrary 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]).

2014Contrary 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]).

2014The 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]).

2014The 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]).

2014The 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]).

2014The 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]).

2014Contrary 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]).

2014Contrary 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]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission to possessing the items and keeping them in his dormitory overnight contrary to required protocol, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination finding him guilty of possessing a weapon (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 71 AD3d 1341, 1341-1342 [2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]; Matter of Rizzuto v Goord, 35 AD3d 1075, 1075 [2006]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission to possessing the items and keeping them in his dormitory overnight contrary to required protocol, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination finding him guilty of possessing a weapon (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 71 AD3d 1341, 1341-1342 [2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]; Matter of Rizzuto v Goord, 35 AD3d 1075, 1075 [2006]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 784 [2012]; Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 784 [2012]; Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]).

2013We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to the charge of making a false statement, as the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt, which respondent concedes (see Matter of Turner v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1310, 1310 [2012]; Matter of DeJesus v Prack, 93 AD3d 985, 985 [2012]).

2013We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to the charge of making a false statement, as the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt, which respondent concedes (see Matter of Turner v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1310, 1310 [2012]; Matter of DeJesus v Prack, 93 AD3d 985, 985 [2012]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 784 [2012]; Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 784 [2012]; Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lamage v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1176, 1176 [2012]; Matter of Ramos v Selsky, 48 AD3d 863, 864 [2008]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lamage v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1176, 1176 [2012]; Matter of Ramos v Selsky, 48 AD3d 863, 864 [2008]).

2013We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to the charge of making a false statement, as the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt, which respondent concedes (see Matter of Turner v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1310, 1310 [2012]; Matter of DeJesus v Prack, 93 AD3d 985, 985 [2012]).

2013We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to the charge of making a false statement, as the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt, which respondent concedes (see Matter of Turner v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1310, 1310 [2012]; Matter of DeJesus v Prack, 93 AD3d 985, 985 [2012]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission to possessing the items and keeping them in his dormitory overnight contrary to required protocol, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination finding him guilty of possessing a weapon (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 71 AD3d 1341, 1341-1342 [2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]; Matter of Rizzuto v Goord, 35 AD3d 1075, 1075 [2006]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission to possessing the items and keeping them in his dormitory overnight contrary to required protocol, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination finding him guilty of possessing a weapon (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 71 AD3d 1341, 1341-1342 [2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]; Matter of Rizzuto v Goord, 35 AD3d 1075, 1075 [2006]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lamage v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1176, 1176 [2012]; Matter of Ramos v Selsky, 48 AD3d 863, 864 [2008]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lamage v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1176, 1176 [2012]; Matter of Ramos v Selsky, 48 AD3d 863, 864 [2008]).

2013Although petitioner maintained that the other inmate was the aggressor and he did not strike the inmate, substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that petitioner “engage[d] in fighting” in violation of prison rules (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [1] [iv]; see Matter of Ortiz v Goord, 298 AD2d 736, 737 [2002]; Matter of Kelly v Goord, 251 AD2d 803, 803-804 [1998]).

2013Although petitioner maintained that the other inmate was the aggressor and he did not strike the inmate, substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that petitioner “engage[d] in fighting” in violation of prison rules (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [1] [iv]; see Matter of Ortiz v Goord, 298 AD2d 736, 737 [2002]; Matter of Kelly v Goord, 251 AD2d 803, 803-804 [1998]).

2013Although petitioner maintained that the other inmate was the aggressor and he did not strike the inmate, substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that petitioner “engage[d] in fighting” in violation of prison rules (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [1] [iv]; see Matter of Ortiz v Goord, 298 AD2d 736, 737 [2002]; Matter of Kelly v Goord, 251 AD2d 803, 803-804 [1998]).

2013Although petitioner maintained that the other inmate was the aggressor and he did not strike the inmate, substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that petitioner “engage[d] in fighting” in violation of prison rules (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [1] [iv]; see Matter of Ortiz v Goord, 298 AD2d 736, 737 [2002]; Matter of Kelly v Goord, 251 AD2d 803, 803-804 [1998]).

2012The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Telford v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]; Matter of Dixon v Brown, 62 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]).

2012The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Telford v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]; Matter of Dixon v Brown, 62 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]).

2012The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Telford v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]; Matter of Dixon v Brown, 62 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]).

2012The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Telford v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]; Matter of Dixon v Brown, 62 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]).

2000The conflicting testimony presented by petitioner merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Alvarado v Goord, 252 AD2d 650 ).

1998The conflicting testimony presented by petitioner merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Alvarado v Goord, 252 AD2d 650, 651).

2019Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements to police because, based on the testimony presented at the hearing, defense counsel conceded that there was "no real argument that [he] could make that the statements [were not] voluntary" and, at the suppression hearing, he stipulated to the constitutionality of the statements based upon a review of the video of the interview ( see People v Katehis , 117 AD3d 1080 , 1081 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 951 [2015]; People v Stroman , 27 AD3d 589, 590 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006]).

2019Supreme Court did not err by refusing to strike a prospective juror for cause. "[W]here a prospective juror unambiguously states that, despite preexisting opinions that might indicate bias, he or she will decide the case impartially and based on the evidence, the trial court has discretion to deny the challenge for cause if it determines that the juror's promise to be impartial is credible" ( People v Warrington , 28 NY3d 1116, 1120 [2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets, emphasis and citation omitted]; see People v Gross , 172 AD3d 741 , 743 [2019]).

2018As to petitioner's challenge to the remaining charges, the misbehavior report and the testimony presented at the hearing, including the testimony of the misbehavior report's author who was involved in the incident, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Stallone v Fischer , 109 AD3d 1065, 1065-1066 [2013]; Matter of McNeil v Fischer , 95 AD3d 1520, 1521 [2012]; Matter of Crenshaw v Fischer , 87 AD3d 1189, 1190 [2011]).

2018Although petitioner denied making a false statement and taking his identification card and then leaving the area without permission, his varying narrative of the incident presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Ballard v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1013, 1015 [2017]).