Conway v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conway v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services

278 A.D.2d 636, 717 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13131

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 636 (Conway v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services) 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

Conway v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services, 278 A.D.2d 636, 717 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Petitioner challenges a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Petitioner maintains that a combination of his medications could have resulted in a false positive result. Although petitioner claimed to be taking seven different medications, testimony from the facility nurse as well as a memoran[637]*637dum from the correction officer who tested the urine sample established that at the time petitioner’s urine sample was obtained he was not taking any medication that would alter the results of the urinalysis test. Petitioner attempted to refute such testimony by producing a prescription bottle which still contained Pentasa pills, but this medication was not denoted on the SYVA list of medications which would cause a false positive for cannabinoids.

It is within the province of the Hearing Officer to resolve any credibility issues resulting from the conflicting testimony regarding medications that petitioner was taking at the time he submitted the urine sample (see, Matter of Filbert v Goord, 267 AD2d 536; Matter of Rivera v Goord, 261 AD2d 754, 755). The positive results of the urinalysis tests and the testimony received at the hearing provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Youngblood v Goord, 267 AD2d 640, 641).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for our review or without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain and Rose, 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

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

Petitioner challenges a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Petitioner maintains that a combination of his medications could have resulted in a false positive result. Although petitioner claimed to be taking seven different medications, testimony from the facility nurse as well as a memoran[637]*637dum from the correction officer who tested the urine sample established that at the time petitioner’s urine sample was obtained he was not taking any medication that would alter the results of the urinalysis test. Petitioner attempted to refute such testimony by producing a prescription bottle which still contained Pentasa pills, but this medication was not denoted on the SYVA list of medications which would cause a false positive for cannabinoids.

It is within the province of the Hearing Officer to resolve any credibility issues resulting from the conflicting testimony regarding medications that petitioner was taking at the time he submitted the urine sample (see, Matter of Filbert v Goord, 267 AD2d 536; Matter of Rivera v Goord, 261 AD2d 754, 755). The positive results of the urinalysis tests and the testimony received at the hearing provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Youngblood v Goord, 267 AD2d 640, 641).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for our review or without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 636, 717 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conway-v-commissioner-of-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack