Juzwa v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Juzwa v. Goord

264 A.D.2d 920, 695 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9346

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 920 (Juzwa 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

Juzwa v. Goord, 264 A.D.2d 920, 695 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

[921]*921Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from possessing narcotics after a substance secreted inside petitioner’s pen tested positive for barbiturates. In our view, the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence supporting the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Kussius v Walker, 247 AD2d 911, 912). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the chain of custody was sufficiently documented and a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results. Although petitioner maintained that he found the pen in question shortly before it was confiscated and that the test results were “manufactured” in order to frame him, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 253 AD2d 940). Finally, we have examined petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

[921]*921Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from possessing narcotics after a substance secreted inside petitioner’s pen tested positive for barbiturates. In our view, the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence supporting the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Kussius v Walker, 247 AD2d 911, 912). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the chain of custody was sufficiently documented and a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results. Although petitioner maintained that he found the pen in question shortly before it was confiscated and that the test results were “manufactured” in order to frame him, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 253 AD2d 940). Finally, we have examined petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 920, 695 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juzwa-v-goord-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack