Opinion
2018-06615 Index No. 142/18
09-25-2019
In the Matter of Billy LIGHTFOOT, Petitioner, v. Robert I. MORTON, etc., Respondent.
Billy Lightfoot, Dannemora, NY, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
Billy Lightfoot, Dannemora, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Downstate Correctional Facility dated September 11, 2017. The determination affirmed a determination of a Hearing Officer dated August 28, 2017, made after a tier II disciplinary hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of violating Institutional Rules of Conduct rule 113.24 (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][14][xiv] ), and imposed a penalty.
ADJUDGED that the determination dated September 11, 2017, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner, an inmate at the Downstate Correctional Facility, was charged with violating a prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the use of controlled substances (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][14][xiv] ). After a hearing at which the results of a urinalysis test were admitted (see 7 NYCRR 1020.5 ), the Hearing Officer found the petitioner guilty. The petitioner appealed to the respondent, who affirmed the Hearing Officer's determination and imposed a penalty. Subsequently, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondent's determination.
"A prison disciplinary determination made as a result of a hearing at which evidence was taken pursuant to direction by law must be supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Adamson v. Barto , 37 A.D.3d 597, 598, 829 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; see CPLR 7803[4] ; Matter of Bryant v. Coughlin , 77 N.Y.2d 642, 647, 569 N.Y.S.2d 582, 572 N.E.2d 23 ; Matter of Cumberland v. Annucci , 161 A.D.3d 859, 859, 77 N.Y.S.3d 101 ). "Substantial evidence ‘means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact’ " ( Matter of Benito v. Calero , 102 A.D.3d 778, 779, 961 N.Y.S.2d 190, quoting 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights , 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 ; see Matter of Charles v. Rockland County Sheriff , 157 A.D.3d 670, 671, 69 N.Y.S.3d 1 ; Matter of Jackson v. Gerbing , 150 A.D.3d 734, 736, 54 N.Y.S.3d 35 ).
Here, the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results, and request for urinalysis test form, together with the hearing testimony, provided substantial evidence that the petitioner was guilty of the charged prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Callender v. Prack , 128 A.D.3d 693, 694, 7 N.Y.S.3d 604 ; Matter of Marshall v. Fischer , 103 A.D.3d 726, 727–728, 958 N.Y.S.2d 800 ). Additionally, the request for urinalysis test form and hearing testimony demonstrated the proper chain of custody (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f]; Matter of Cotterell v. Taylor–Stewart , 145 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 44 N.Y.S.3d 228 ; Matter of Coleman v. Bezio , 79 A.D.3d 1332, 1333, 913 N.Y.S.2d 387 ; Matter of Odome v. Goord , 8 A.D.3d 921, 922, 779 N.Y.S.2d 603 ). Further, the petitioner's denial of the use of drugs and claim that his urine sample was tampered with presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Blunt v. Annucci , 155 A.D.3d 1226, 1227, 63 N.Y.S.3d 275 ; Matter of Green v. Annucci , 148 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 49 N.Y.S.3d 583 ).
The petitioner's right to call witnesses was not violated, as he failed to demonstrate that the requested witness could have provided testimony that was relevant to the charges or material to any issue in dispute (see Matter of Sparks v. Annucci , 144 A.D.3d 1352, 1353, 43 N.Y.S.3d 145 ; Matter of Miller v. Annucci , 131 A.D.3d 1304, 1305, 16 N.Y.S.3d 348 ). Similarly, the petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to submit documentary evidence is without merit inasmuch as the document he sought would have been irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of McMillian v. Lempke , 149 A.D.3d 1492, 1493–1494, 52 N.Y.S.3d 771 ; Matter of Medina v. Prack , 101 A.D.3d 1295, 1297, 955 N.Y.S.2d 453 ). Finally, there is no support in the record for the petitioner's claims that the Hearing Officer was biased against him or that he was otherwise denied a fair hearing (see Matter of Guadalupe v. Venettozzi , 158 A.D.3d 883, 885, 70 N.Y.S.3d 591 ; Matter of Yven Chen v. Venettozzi , 141 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 35 N.Y.S.3d 605 ).
BALKIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.