Opinion
12-24-2015
In the Matter of Ronmel MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Ronmel Martinez, Ogdensburg, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
Ronmel Martinez, Ogdensburg, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner was ordered to submit a urine specimen for testing and it twice tested positive for the presence of three different substances, namely, buprenorphine, THC 50 and K2–2. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance and also with using an intoxicant. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges and the determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the hearing testimony, provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of using a controlled substance (see Matter of Cobb v. Yelich, 118 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 988 N.Y.S.2d 297 [2014] ; Matter of Cagle v. Fischer, 108 A.D.3d 913, 968 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2013] ) and using an intoxicant (see Matter of Ralands v. Prack, 131 A.D.3d 1334, 1335, 16 N.Y.S.3d 788 [2015] ). The chain of custody of the specimen was adequately established through the information contained on the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the correction officer who collected the specimen (see Matter of Paddyfote v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 987 N.Y.S.2d 719 [2014] ; Matter of Davis v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d 1154, 950 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2012] ). Contrary to petitioner's claim, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4937 was not violated because the specimen was collected in the bathroom of the dorm, rather than in a hospital or infirmary, as this was an appropriate area (see 7 NYCRR 1020. 4 [d][1] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.