Cobb v. Yelich
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Booker v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Rahman v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Watson v. Gardner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Baxton v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Jenkins v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Jenkins v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Williams v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Matter of Richardson v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Martinez v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Martinez v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
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 Franklin County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the
We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis results, related documentation and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination (see Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913, 913 [2013]; Matter of Sutton v Prack, 107 AD3d 1250, 1250 [2013]). Further, the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the correction officers involved established that petitioner’s urine sample was properly secured and that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the urine sample (see Matter of Polite v Goord, 22 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2005]; Matter of Saif’Ul’Bait v Goord, 15 AD3d 703, 704-705 [2005]). We reject petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the testimony of certain witnesses, as such testimony would have been redundant (see Matter of Cody v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1651, 1651-1652 [2011]; Matter of Warren v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1466, 1467 [2009]). Petitioner’s remaining claims, including his assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased against him, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.