Bonilla v. Coombe

221 A.D.2d 782, 633 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11770
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 16, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 782 (Bonilla v. Coombe) 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
Bonilla v. Coombe, 221 A.D.2d 782, 633 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After taking a urinalysis test which produced a positive result for the presence of opiates, petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with, and subsequently found guilty of, violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using controlled substances. Petitioner contends that the positive test result was attributable to his consumption of cheeseburgers with poppy seed buns at around the time the test was conducted. He argues that he was deprived of due process because the Hearing Officer refused his request to call as a witness a representative of the company which manufactured the testing equipment and that the administrative determination is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Initially, inasmuch as petitioner failed to raise this issue upon administrative appeal, petitioner has failed to preserve the issue for review. Upon review of the record, we find that the misbehavior report, the urinalysis test result and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the test provide substantial evidence supporting respondent’s determination. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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

Rivera v. Goord
261 A.D.2d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Bonaguro v. Goord
256 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Hernandez v. McGinnis
251 A.D.2d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Lorusso v. Goord
248 A.D.2d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Marano v. Goord
247 A.D.2d 797 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Gonzalez v. Goord
246 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Nonni v. Goord
245 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Martinez v. Ross
243 A.D.2d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Wood v. Selsky
240 A.D.2d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Nina v. Coombe
233 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Wiggins v. Coombe
232 A.D.2d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 A.D.2d 782, 633 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonilla-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1995.