Burgos-Morales v. Goord

22 A.D.3d 999, 802 N.Y.S.2d 388
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 999 (Burgos-Morales 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
Burgos-Morales v. Goord, 22 A.D.3d 999, 802 N.Y.S.2d 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) [1000]*1000to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. He was found guilty following a tier III hearing. After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Initially, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony and the positive urinalysis test results, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Paige v Goord, 19 AD3d 908 [2005]; Matter of Townes v Goord, 14 AD3d 754, 754-755 [2005]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the request for urinalysis test form adequately set forth the chain of custody of the specimen by indicating when it was collected, placed in the freezer, removed for testing and destroyed, as well as the identity of the officers handling it (see Matter of Van Dusen v Selsky, 14 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s assertion that he was improperly denied the right to call witnesses as the individuals in question would not have provided testimony relevant to the charge (see Matter of Alexander v Goord, 3 AD3d 638 [2004]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Kane, 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

Anderson v. Fischer
63 A.D.3d 1462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rizzuto v. Goord
35 A.D.3d 1078 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Davis v. Goord
34 A.D.3d 1027 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
White v. Selsky
32 A.D.3d 1101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Young v. Selsky
32 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Pettus v. Selsky
28 A.D.3d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Pennington v. Selsky
27 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Hayes v. Goord
26 A.D.3d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.3d 999, 802 N.Y.S.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-morales-v-goord-nyappdiv-2005.