From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burch v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 26, 2018
160 A.D.3d 1328 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

525562

04-26-2018

In the Matter of William BURCH, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

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


William Burch, Malone, petitioner pro se.

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

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENTProceeding 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 using a controlled substance after his urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of buprenorphine. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary proceeding, petitioner pleaded guilty and, as a result, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of the charge. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner's guilty plea precludes him from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of LaGrave v. Venettozzi, 157 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 70 N.Y.S.3d 587 [2018] ; Matter of Reed v. Annucci, 155 A.D.3d 1193, 1194, 63 N.Y.S.3d 259 [2017] ). Petitioner's challenge to the chain of custody of his urine sample was not raised at the hearing and is irrelevant in light of his admission to using a controlled substance (cf. Matter of Tingling v. Fischer, 108 A.D.3d 989, 990, 968 N.Y.S.2d 915 [2013] ). In addition, there is no evidence in the record to support petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer coerced him into pleading guilty (see Matter of Pequero v. Annucci, 156 A.D.3d 986, 987, 64 N.Y.S.3d 611 [2017] ; Matter of Almonte v. Fischer, 70 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 894 N.Y.S.2d 570 [2010], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 709, 2010 WL 1794939 [2010] ).

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

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Burch v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Apr 26, 2018
160 A.D.3d 1328 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Burch v. Venettozzi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of William BURCH, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as…

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2018

Citations

160 A.D.3d 1328 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 2865
72 N.Y.S.3d 507

Citing Cases

Mcpherson v. Annucci

We reverse. Although petitioner's guilty plea precludes him from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence…

Hamilton v. Eckert

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul a…