Opinion
09-15-2016
In the Matter of James C. HINES II, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
James C. Hines II, Elmira, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
James C. Hines II, Elmira, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco 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 a prison disciplinary rule.Two separate tests of petitioner's urine sample yielded positive results for the presence of synthetic marihuana and, consequently, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using an intoxicant (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][14] [iii] ). He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was later upheld on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation and the hearing testimony, supports the determination finding petitioner guilty of using an intoxicant (see Matter of Belle v. Prack, 140 A.D.3d 1509, 1510, 35 N.Y.S.3d 513 [2016] ; Matter of Ralands v. Prack, 131 A.D.3d 1334, 1335, 16 N.Y.S.3d 788 [2015] ). Although petitioner maintains that the test results were fraudulent and that there is no test to detect the presence of synthetic marihuana, this claim is belied by the record. In regard to the reliability of the test results, we note that the “identity of the exact chemical compounds detected in the synthetic marihuana was not necessary” (Matter of Timmons v. Annucci, 139 A.D.3d 1224, 1224, 29 N.Y.S.3d 832 [2016] ). Petitioner's remaining arguments have not been preserved for our review.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, LYNCH, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ., concur.