Frantz v. Venettozzi
| Decision Date | 26 January 2017 |
| Citation | 146 A.D.3d 1254,2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00517,44 N.Y.S.3d 818 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jean FRANTZ, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
146 A.D.3d 1254
44 N.Y.S.3d 818
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00517
In the Matter of Jean FRANTZ, Petitioner,
v.
Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan. 26, 2017.
Jean Frantz, Elmira, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jeffrey W. Lang of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, GARRY, ROSE and MULVEY, JJ.
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 was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for THC. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and this determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive drug test results, related documentation and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of using a controlled substance (see Matter of Belle v. Prack, 140 A.D.3d 1509, 1510, 35 N.Y.S.3d 513 [2016] ; Matter of Martinez v. Annucci, 134 A.D.3d 1380, 1380–1381, 21 N.Y.S.3d 771 [2015] ). Petitioner's challenge to the foundation of the positive test results—due to the fact that the sample identification numbers entered on the two test result forms differed by one number—is unpreserved for our review in light of petitioner's failure to raise this issue at the hearing (see Matter of Monje v. Geoghegan, 108 A.D.3d 957, 957–958, 969 N.Y.S.2d 612 [2013] ; Matter of Ortiz v. Fischer, 64 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 882 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2009] ).
We reject petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to call a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele-Warrick v. Microgenics Corp.
...of benign consumables, like poppy seed muffins, will beconfused with metabolites of illicit substances[.]"); Frantz v. Venettozzi, 146 A.D.3d 1254, 1255 (3d Dep't 2017) (noting that urinalysis testing equipment manual contained at least one page pertaining to cross-reactivity issues). b. DO......
-
Walton v. Annucci
... ... for the drug testing system, as such testimony would have been redundant or irrelevant to the charges (see 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; Matter of Frantz v. Venettozzi, 146 A.D.3d 1254, 1255, 44 N.Y.S.3d 818 [2017], lv ... denied 29 N.Y.3d 919, 64 N.Y.S.3d 669, 86 N.E.3d 561 [2017] ). We further reject ... ...
- Jones v. Annucci