Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013

Monje v. Geoghegan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 18, 2013

108 A.D.3d 957; 969 N.Y.S.2d 612

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Singh v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of LaGrave v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Brown v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Frantz v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Medina v. Five Points Corr. Facility (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Jones v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Jones v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Guerrero v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Guerrero v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a search of petitioner’s locker, a correction officer found a ham tin containing three prescription bags and an unidentified substance in the finger of a plastic glove, the latter of which subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing unauthorized medication and possessing a controlled substance. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing that followed, petitioner was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance and not guilty of possessing unauthorized medication, and a penalty was imposed. That determination was affirmed upon petitioner’s administrative appeal, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). Petitioner’s denial that he possessed drugs presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Xao He Lu v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 72 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2010]). To the extent that petitioner challenges the foundation for the drug test results, contends that he was not provided with the appropriate testing documents or asserts that the Hearing Officer improperly admitted double hearsay, petitioner did not raise these issues at the hearing, thereby rendering them *958unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Ortiz v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2009]; Matter of Lopez v Goord, 49 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]; Matter of Horton v Allard, 25 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.