From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horton v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jul 26, 2018
163 A.D.3d 1385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

526022

07-26-2018

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

Ryan Horton, Dannemora, petitioner pro se. Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Ryan Horton, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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 was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing marihuana. According to the report, while a correction officer was conducting a strip frisk of petitioner after he left the visit room, the officer spotted an item protruding from petitioner's anal cavity. When questioned, petitioner voluntarily removed from his rectum four plastic bags containing a green leafy substance that later tested positive for marihuana. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, including the positive test results, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the frisk and the officer who tested the substance provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Davis v. Lempke, 148 A.D.3d 1366, 1367, 48 N.Y.S.3d 630 [2017] ; Matter of Collins v. Annucci, 146 A.D.3d 1261, 1261, 45 N.Y.S.3d 699 [2017] ). Petitioner's denial that he possessed marihuana and claim that he was "set up" by correction officers created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Sanchez v. Annucci, 126 A.D.3d 1194, 1194–1195, 3 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2015] ; Matter of Thompson v. Fischer, 89 A.D.3d 1353, 1354, 934 N.Y.S.2d 528 [2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 809, 2012 WL 996931 [2012] ). The fact that the visit room log book did not reference the discovery of the marihuana was adequately explained by the correction officer who kept the log book, who testified that the discovery took place outside of the visit room and she was not informed of the discovery until after she had closed the visit room for the day, which the Hearing Officer found credible (see Matter of Miller v. Venettozzi, 149 A.D.3d 1451, 1451–1452, 51 N.Y.S.3d 271 [2017] ). Turning to petitioner's procedural challenges, we reject his contention that he was improperly denied the testimony of two correction officers who placed him on contraband watch after the discovery of the four plastic bags. Petitioner requested the testimony in order to challenge the authorization of the contraband watch. However, as the charges were based upon the contraband recovered as the result of the strip search that occurred prior to petitioner being placed on contraband watch, the requested testimony was properly denied as irrelevant (see Matter of Mullamphy v. Fischer, 112 A.D.3d 1177, 1177, 976 N.Y.S.2d 628 [2013] ; Matter of Merritt v. Fischer, 108 A.D.3d 993, 994, 969 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2013] ). Further, the denial of the witnesses as irrelevant does not demonstrate that the Hearing Officer was biased (see Matter of Cotterell v. Taylor–Stewart, 145 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 44 N.Y.S.3d 228 [2016] ), and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Marhone v. Venettozzi, 159 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 72 N.Y.S.3d 635 [2018] ; Matter of Ortiz v. Venettozzi, 158 A.D.3d 865, 866, 70 N.Y.S.3d 598 [2018] ). Petitioner's remaining claims have been considered and found to be without merit.

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

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Horton v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jul 26, 2018
163 A.D.3d 1385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Horton v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RYAN HORTON, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 26, 2018

Citations

163 A.D.3d 1385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
163 A.D.3d 1385
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 5553

Citing Cases

Vallecillo v. Annucci

We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, including the positive test results, together…

Tigner v. Rodriguez

Petitioner's claim that the misbehavior report was authored in retaliation for him complaining about the…