Case Name: In the Matter of James C. Hines II, Petitioner, v. Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-09-15
Citations: 142 A.D.3d 1219
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of James C. Hines II, Petitioner, v Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
Judges: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 1219–1220

Head Matter:
In the Matter of James C. Hines II, Petitioner, v Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
[37 NYS3d 461]—

Opinion:
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.
Two separate tests of petitioner's urine sample yielded positive results for the presence of synthetic marihuana and, consequently, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using an intoxicant (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]). He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was later upheld on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation and the hearing testimony, supports the determination finding petitioner guilty of using an intoxicant (see Matter of Belle v Prack, 140 AD3d 1509, 1510 [2016]; Matter of Ralands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]). Although petitioner maintains that the test results were fraudulent and that there is no test to detect the presence of synthetic marihuana, this claim is belied by the record. In regard to the reliability of the test results, we note that the "identity of the exact chemical compounds detected in the synthetic marihuana was not necessary" (Matter of Timmons v Annucci, 139 AD3d 1224, 1224 [2016]). Petitioner's remaining arguments have not been preserved for our review.
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.