Goldberg v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Goord

22 A.D.3d 665, 801 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 665 (Goldberg 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

Goldberg v. Goord, 22 A.D.3d 665, 801 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated March 31, 2003, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating a prison rule by failing to produce a urine sample as ordered, and imposed a sanction.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs and disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination finding him guilty of violating a prison rule by failing to produce a urine sample as ordered is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647 [1991]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Hu[666]*666man Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). The urinalysis testing program was conducted in reasonable compliance with the relevant regulatory procedures and, accordingly, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Muniz v Selsky, 301 AD2d 769, 770 [2003]). Moreover, the record does not support the petitioner’s claims of bias (see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834 [1989]; Matter of Wood v Cosgrove, 237 AD2d 616, 617 [1997]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated March 31, 2003, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating a prison rule by failing to produce a urine sample as ordered, and imposed a sanction.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs and disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination finding him guilty of violating a prison rule by failing to produce a urine sample as ordered is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647 [1991]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Hu[666]*666man Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). The urinalysis testing program was conducted in reasonable compliance with the relevant regulatory procedures and, accordingly, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Muniz v Selsky, 301 AD2d 769, 770 [2003]). Moreover, the record does not support the petitioner’s claims of bias (see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834 [1989]; Matter of Wood v Cosgrove, 237 AD2d 616, 617 [1997]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 665, 801 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-goord-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack