James v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 27 January 2022
• Docket Number: 532956
• Parties: In the Matter of Kyle JAMES, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

201 A.D.3d 1286
158 N.Y.S.3d 643 (Mem)

In the Matter of Kyle JAMES, Petitioner,
v.
Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

532956

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: December 30, 2021
Decided and Entered: January 27, 2022

Kyle James, Napanoch, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

201 A.D.3d 1286

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a search of a visitor's bathroom within the facility, a correction officer discovered four latex gloves containing a green leafy substance hidden behind a soap dispenser, which later tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids. An investigation ensued, and the synthetic cannabinoids hidden behind the soap dispenser were replaced with "sham packs" covered with invisible ultraviolet ink. At the end of his porter duties, petitioner, along with other porters, were given a direct order to place their hands up for scanning with an ultraviolet light, and petitioner was found to have ultraviolet ink on his hands. As a result of the foregoing, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing drugs and smuggling. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. On administrative review, that determination was upheld, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, respondent concedes, and our review of the record confirms, that the part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing drugs is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled. Because the penalty has been served and no loss of good time was imposed, the matter does not need to be remitted for a redetermination of the penalty

...