Gonzalez v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Goord

246 A.D.2d 942, 667 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 746

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 942 (Gonzalez 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

Gonzalez v. Goord, 246 A.D.2d 942, 667 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after two urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of cannabinoids. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Among the evidence presented against petitioner at his disciplinary hearing was documentation relating to the positive results of the urinalysis tests, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests and authored the report. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Bonilla v Coombe, 221 AD2d 782, lv denied 87 NY2d 807). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertions that the storage and testing of his urine samples were not in accordance with the procedures set forth in 7 NYCRR 1020.4, and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Peters and Carpinello, 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 Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after two urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of cannabinoids. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Among the evidence presented against petitioner at his disciplinary hearing was documentation relating to the positive results of the urinalysis tests, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests and authored the report. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Bonilla v Coombe, 221 AD2d 782, lv denied 87 NY2d 807). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertions that the storage and testing of his urine samples were not in accordance with the procedures set forth in 7 NYCRR 1020.4, and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 942, 667 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack