From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karacostantakis v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2013
107 A.D.3d 1277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-20

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

Michael Karacostantakis, Comstock, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.



Michael Karacostantakis, Comstock, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, 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.

Correction officers discovered a small cellophane package containing what appeared to be a marihuana cigarette during an authorized strip frisk of petitioner. The item tested positive for marihuana and petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possession of a controlled substance. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge. Upon administrative review, the determination was upheld and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report, unusual incident report, drug test results and petitioner's own statements that he possessed the item provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Hall v. Fischer, 87 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 930 N.Y.S.2d 299 [2011];Matter of Truman v. Fischer, 75 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 907 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2010];Matter of Davis v. Prack, 58 A.D.3d 977, 977, 872 N.Y.S.2d 565 [2009] ). Petitioner failed to preserve his argument that there was not a proper foundation for the admission of the drug test results ( see Matter of Shorter v. Prack, 100 A.D.3d 1178, 1179, 953 N.Y.S.2d 414 [2012];Matter of Boggs v. Martuscello, 84 A.D.3d 1667, 1668, 923 N.Y.S.2d 369 [2011] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent not addressed herein, have been considered and found to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Karacostantakis v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2013
107 A.D.3d 1277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Karacostantakis v. Prack

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Michael KARACOSTANTAKIS, Petitioner, v. Albert PRACK, as…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 1277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
107 A.D.3d 1277
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4668

Citing Cases

Bellamy v. Venettozzi

We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the detailed misbehavior report, authored by the correction…