From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Prentiss v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94706.

Decided and Entered: May 13, 2004.

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.

Anthony Prentiss, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Nancy A. Spiegel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, 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 his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, two positive test results and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Madison v. Selsky, 2 A.D.3d 934). Testimony from both the SYVA representative and correction facility pharmacist refuted petitioner's claim that the ingredients found in the cough medicine he was taking would cause a false positive for opiates (see id.; Matter of Lorino v. Murphy, 309 A.D.2d 1037, 1038). Furthermore, we find no error in denying petitioner's request to call various witnesses, as the record establishes that their testimony would have been redundant or irrelevant (see Matter of Madison v. Selsky, supra at 934; Matter of Herring v. Goord, 300 A.D.2d 724, 725, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 510). Finally, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that the request for urinalysis form ordering petitioner to submit a urine sample was not properly authorized.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

In the Matter of Prentiss v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Prentiss v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY PRENTISS, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, as…

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

Date published: May 13, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Wigfall v. Goord

His claim that he was improperly denied a witness is also unavailing. Although the Hearing Officer did not…

In the Matter of Brown v. Goord

We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report, unusual incident report and testimony…