From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Briggs v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 15, 2016
145 A.D.3d 1301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-15-2016

In the Matter of Wade BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Wade Briggs, Comstock, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.


Wade Briggs, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, LYNCH, DEVINE and MULVEY, JJ.

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use after his urine twice tested positive for THC. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty, and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive drug test results and related documentation provide substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner had used drugs (see Matter of Walker v. Annucci, 129 A.D.3d 1414, 1415, 10 N.Y.S.3d 465 [2015] ; Matter of Merritt v. Fischer, 108 A.D.3d 993, 994, 969 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2013] ). Petitioner did not request that the author of the misbehavior report testify at the hearing, contrary to his contention, and the Hearing Officer was under no obligation to do so for him (see Matter of Tulloch v. Fischer, 90 A.D.3d 1370, 1371, 935 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2011] ; Matter of Hernandez v. Selsky, 62 A.D.3d 1177, 1178, 880 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2009] ; Matter of Retamozzo v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 31 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 819 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2006] ). 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] ).

Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Briggs v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 15, 2016
145 A.D.3d 1301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Briggs v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Wade BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 15, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 1301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
43 N.Y.S.3d 604
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8420

Citing Cases

Williams v. Kirkpatrick

We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the determination of guilt, particularly with regard to…

Onega v. Rodriquez

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related…