Aviles v. Selsky

264 A.D.2d 883, 696 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 16, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 883 (Aviles v. Selsky) 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
Aviles v. Selsky, 264 A.D.2d 883, 696 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

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 Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of [884]*884controlled substances after two EMIT urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of cannabinoids. Challenging the determination, petitioner claims that the positive test results were caused by a prescription medication that he was taking at the time his urine was tested. However, the misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Hernandez v McGinnis, 251 AD2d 769; Matter of Lopez v Goord, 242 AD2d 816). We find no error in the Hearing Officer’s reliance on the testimony of the correctional facility nurse which refuted evidence submitted by petitioner that the prescription drug he was taking caused a false positive (see, Matter of Lopez v Goord, supra, at 816-817). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they have been preserved for our review, have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, 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

Mena v. Goord
278 A.D.2d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Rivera v. Goord
276 A.D.2d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Terry v. Goord
272 A.D.2d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Mitchell v. Goord
272 A.D.2d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Retzer v. Goord
272 A.D.2d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Smith v. Goord
269 A.D.2d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D.2d 883, 696 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aviles-v-selsky-nyappdiv-1999.