Matter of Roman v Prack

Matter of Roman v Prack 2015 NY Slip Op 08026 Decided on November 5, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: November 5, 2015
520346

[*1]In the Matter of JOSE A. ROMAN, Petitioner,

v

ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Calendar Date: September 22, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

Jose A. Roman, Brocton, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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.

After petitioner's urine twice tested positive for the presence of synthetic marihuana, he was charged in a misbehavior report with use of an intoxicant. 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 test results and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to

support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Harriot v Annucci, 131 AD3d 754, 754 [2015]). A review of the record establishes that petitioner was given all relevant documentary evidence (see Matter of Paddyforte v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Jones v Venettozzi, 114 AD3d 980, 981 [2014]). Furthermore, the chain of custody and adherence to proper testing procedures were established through the documentary evidence and testimony from the correction officer who performed the urinalysis tests (see Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913, 913 [2013]). To the extent that petitioner asserts that he was improperly charged with use of an intoxicant, we find his contention to be unpersuasive (see Matter of Ralands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to [*2]be without merit.

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

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