From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 12, 2015
133 A.D.3d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-11-12

In the Matter of Shirwyn JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Shirwyn Joseph, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Shirwyn Joseph, Malone, 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.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of buprenorphine. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results, related documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Paddyfote v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 987 N.Y.S.2d 719 [2014]; Matter of Cane v. Fischer, 115 A.D.3d 1097, 1098, 982 N.Y.S.2d 405 [2014] ). Petitioner's claim that prescribed medication caused the positive test results was contradicted by testimony from the correction officer who testified that the medication was not denoted on the manufacturer's reactivity list of medications that would cause a false positive, thus creating a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Curry v. Fischer, 93 A.D.3d 984, 984, 939 N.Y.S.2d 732 [2012]; Matter of Conway v. Commissioner of Dept. of Correctional Servs., 278 A.D.2d 636, 637, 717 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2000] ). Petitioner's procedural challenges were not raised at the hearing and, therefore, are not preserved for our review.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, EGAN JR. and CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Joseph v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 12, 2015
133 A.D.3d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Joseph v. Prack

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Shirwyn JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as Director…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2015

Citations

133 A.D.3d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
133 A.D.3d 1014
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 8231

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Annucci

We confirm. Upon reviewing the record, we find no merit to petitioner's claim that he was denied a fair…

Darrett v. Annucci

Furthermore, we conclude that there is nothing inconsistent with the dismissal of the charge of interference…