From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 2, 2012
98 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-08-2

In the Matter of Beresford HALL, Petitioner, v. D. VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Beresford Hall, Stormville, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.



Beresford Hall, Stormville, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ROSE, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, GARRY and EGAN JR., 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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of drug use. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and testimony of the correction officer who collected the urine specimen, as well as the correction officer who tested it, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Fragosa v. Moore, 93 A.D.3d 979, 980, 939 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2012];Matter of Zippo v. Goord, 2 A.D.3d 1006, 768 N.Y.S.2d 406 [2003] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the validity of the test results was not undermined by discrepancies on the request for urinalysis form or testing forms as any errors were sufficiently explained by the respective correction officers at the hearing, and the reliability of the procedures were supported by other documentation in the record ( see Matter of Faraldo v. Bezio, 93 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 939 N.Y.S.2d 893 [2012];Matter of White v. Fischer, 85 A.D.3d 1483, 1483–1484, 925 N.Y.S.2d 903 [2011];Matter of Foust v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 904, 694 N.Y.S.2d 489 [1999] ).

Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved or have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Hall v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 2, 2012
98 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Hall v. Venettozzi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Beresford HALL, Petitioner, v. D. VENETTOZZI, as Acting…

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

Date published: Aug 2, 2012

Citations

98 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5867
949 N.Y.S.2d 299

Citing Cases

Reese v. Prack

We now confirm. The information contained in the request for urinalysis form satisfactorily established the…

Guerrero v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision

The misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who performed the drug testing, and positive test…