From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Branch v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

91495

Decided and Entered: October 24, 2002.

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 Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Sean Branch, Marcy, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after a urinalysis twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. We reject petitioner's contention that proper testing procedures were not followed because the correction officer who collected the urine sample did not personally make the appropriate notation on the chain of custody portion of the urinalysis test request form. "[I]t is enough that another, a secretary or some other staff member, make the notations on the handler's behalf" (Matter of Hop Wah v. Coughlin, 153 A.D.2d 999, 1000, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 705; see Matter of Woodrich v. Coombe, 231 A.D.2d 892).

We also reject petitioner's assertion that he received ineffective employee assistance because he was not provided with certain documents. The record indicates that petitioner was informed at the hearing that his name did not appear in the S-block log book which he requested. Furthermore, although he was not given a copy of the directive regarding the collection of a urine specimen, the record indicates that petitioner was familiar with the contents of the requested directive. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the lack of the directive prejudiced his defense (see Matter of West v. Costello, 270 A.D.2d 673; Matter of Greene v. Coombe, 242 A.D.2d 796, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 803). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his challenge to the hearing extension, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Branch v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Branch v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SEAN BRANCH, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Director of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 24, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 523

Citing Cases

Roman v. Selsky

Contrary to petitioner's representations, we find that the form submitted to request laboratory testing of…

In the Matter of Rolon v. Goord

As for the medical records and photographs relating to his own injuries, petitioner was not prejudiced by the…