Curry v. Coughlin

175 A.D.2d 970, 573 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11456
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 29, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 970 (Curry v. Coughlin) 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
Curry v. Coughlin, 175 A.D.2d 970, 573 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDermott, J.), entered December 11, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges the determination that he violated the disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of a controlled substance on the ground that the specimen bottle was not labeled until after the sample was taken and there was a six-hour period when the specimen was not secured. We find both arguments unpersuasive. First, it is undisputed that the specimen bottle was labeled by a correction officer in petitioner’s presence immediately after he gave the sample. Next, with respect to petitioner’s claim that the chain of custody was flawed, petitioner failed to meet his burden on this issue as he offered [971]*971nothing more than mere speculation that the specimen could have been confused with other samples (see, Matter of Price v Coughlin, 116 AD2d 898, 899). Equally unavailing is petitioner’s claim that he was denied adequate employee assistance because his assistant failed to obtain various items that he had requested. Because the items petitioner requested were either without probative value or were readily available to him, no prejudice resulted from any alleged failure (see, Matter of Irby v Coughlin, 161 AD2d 860, 861; Matter of Serrano v Coughlin, 152 AD2d 790, 792).

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Fischer v. Town of Patterson
2017 NY Slip Op 3174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Van Dusen v. Selsky
14 A.D.3d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Layne v. New York State Board of Parole
256 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Frazier v. Goord
251 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Dumpson v. McGinnis
247 A.D.2d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Hardie v. Russi
234 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Gatson v. Selsky
220 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Mulero v. Coughlin
216 A.D.2d 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Melette v. Berry
181 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 970, 573 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1991.