Gonzalez v. Selsky

301 A.D.2d 1019, 753 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 663
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 1019 (Gonzalez 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
Gonzalez v. Selsky, 301 A.D.2d 1019, 753 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

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 challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. Contrary to [1020]*1020petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, the two positive urinalysis tests results and the testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Goodwine v Selsky, 299 AD2d 728; Matter of Woods v Selsky, 291 AD2d 773). The conflicting testimony at the hearing from petitioner and a representative of SYVA as to whether the amount of poppy seed crackers petitioner had eaten was likely to account for a false positive test result created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wood v Selsky, 240 AD2d 876). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the penalty imposed was harsh or excessive, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, 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

Related

Matter of Wade v. Venettozzi
2017 NY Slip Op 6806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Figueroa v. Goord
15 A.D.3d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Shabazz v. Selsky
12 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Alexander v. Goord
3 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Madison v. Selsky
2 A.D.3d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Perkins v. Goord
308 A.D.2d 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Coppins v. Cerio
307 A.D.2d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 A.D.2d 1019, 753 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2003.