| Matter of Corp v Venettozzi |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03795 [139 AD3d 1228] |
| May 12, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of Jordan Y. Corp,
Petitioner, v Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent. |
Jordan Y. Corp, Marcy, 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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with using drugs after his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, urinalysis test results and related documentation and the testimony of the testing officer provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1380, 1380-1381 [2015]; Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1376, 1376 [2015]). With regard to petitioner's contentions that an incorrect identification number appeared on the testing documentation, the testimony of the testing officer adequately explained that the error in the last digit of petitioner's identification number was a typographical error, which he corrected on the documentation (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]). Insofar as petitioner claims that the sample tested was not his, the [*2]testing officer confirmed that he had collected the urine sample from petitioner, which petitioner admitted providing, and the officer's testimony established the chain of custody and positive results for that sample and that it belonged to petitioner (see id.; see also Matter of Jenkins v Annucci, 136 AD3d 1093, 1093 [2016]; Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d at 1381). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and determined to lack merit.
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.