De Marco v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Marco v. Selsky

288 A.D.2d 584, 732 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10329

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 584 (De Marco 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

De Marco v. Selsky, 288 A.D.2d 584, 732 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

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 was found guilty of violating the prison disciplin[585]*585ary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after the results of two urinalysis tests were positive for the presence of cannabinoids. The positive test results along with the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Irby v Selsky, 284 AD2d 645). We find no merit to petitioner’s contention that the times noted on the urinalysis testing form warrant a finding that the chain of custody or testing procedures were defective (see, Matter of Amante v Goord, 240 AB2d 837). Finally, it was within the Hearing Officer’s province to reject petitioner’s unsupported contention that the positive tests resulted from second-hand smoke inhalation.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello 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 Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplin[585]*585ary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after the results of two urinalysis tests were positive for the presence of cannabinoids. The positive test results along with the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Irby v Selsky, 284 AD2d 645). We find no merit to petitioner’s contention that the times noted on the urinalysis testing form warrant a finding that the chain of custody or testing procedures were defective (see, Matter of Amante v Goord, 240 AB2d 837). Finally, it was within the Hearing Officer’s province to reject petitioner’s unsupported contention that the positive tests resulted from second-hand smoke inhalation.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 584, 732 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-marco-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack