Opinion
07-27-2017
In the Matter of Ricardo LYONS, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Ricardo Lyons, Auburn, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
Ricardo Lyons, Auburn, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.
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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a specimen of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing, 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, together with the testimony of the correction officer who collected and tested petitioner's urine specimen, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Green v. Annucci, 148 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 49 N.Y.S.3d 583 [2017] ; Matter of Creamer v. Venettozzi, 117 A.D.3d 1254, 1254, 984 N.Y.S.2d 893 [2014] ). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the chain of custody of the specimen was properly established by the information contained on the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the officer who collected and tested petitioner's specimen (see Matter of Martinez v. Annucci, 134 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 21 N.Y.S.3d 771 [2015] ; Matter of Paddyfote v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 987 N.Y.S.2d 719 [2014] ). Moreover, inasmuch as the specimen was tested one hour and 45 minutes after it was collected, the officer was not required to refrigerate it in accordance with 7 NYCRR 1020.4(f)(1) (see Matter of Ellison v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 800, 801, 711 N.Y.S.2d 573 [2000] ; Matter of Peterson v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 739, 739, 701 N.Y.S.2d 488 [2000] ). Lastly, the record does not disclose that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Williams v. Prack, 130 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 11 N.Y.S.3d 750 [2015] ; Matter of Paddyfote v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d at 1241, 987 N.Y.S.2d 719 ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE, AARONS and PRITZKER, JJ., concur.