Amante v. Goord

240 A.D.2d 837, 659 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6535
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 12, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 837 (Amante v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amante v. Goord, 240 A.D.2d 837, 659 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme [838]*838Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After petitioner’s urine tested positive for cannabinoids, he was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of unauthorized controlled substances. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the two-minute discrepancy between the testing times indicated on the misbehavior report and the urinalysis form does not warrant a finding that the chain of custody was defective (see generally, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann, 143 AD2d 475, 477). Petitioner’s argument that the Hearing Officer improperly relied on facts outside the record as a basis for rejecting petitioner’s assertion that the positive test result was caused by exposure to second-hand marihuana smoke has not been preserved for review (see, Matter of Satchell v Coughlin, 178 AD2d 795, 796). And, as petitioner essentially concedes, the positive result of the urinalysis test, confirmed by a second test, along with the misbehavior report, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 783, lv denied 82 NY2d 653).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Finnegan v. Lamanna
2020 NY Slip Op 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Taylor v. Taylor
290 A.D.2d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Indelicato v. Mello
284 A.D.2d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Irby v. Selsky
284 A.D.2d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Moore v. Buzzetti
249 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 837, 659 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amante-v-goord-nyappdiv-1997.