Kendrick v. New York State Department of Correctional Service

88 A.D.3d 881, 931 N.Y.2d 255
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 18, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 881 (Kendrick v. New York State Department of Correctional Service) 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
Kendrick v. New York State Department of Correctional Service, 88 A.D.3d 881, 931 N.Y.2d 255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[882]*882Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, the testimony adduced at the Tier III disciplinary hearing, and the “Contraband Drug Testing Directive” regarding narcotics identification kits and the testing procedures for contraband provided substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner possessed an unauthorized type of medication in violation of 7 NYCRR 270.2 (B) (14) (iv) (see Matter of Mills v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; Matter of Maxwell v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2010]; Matter of Brown v Selsky, 38 AD3d 657 [2007]; Matter of Rincon v Selsky, 28 AD3d 565 [2006]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Medina v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility
95 A.D.3d 1331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 A.D.3d 881, 931 N.Y.2d 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-service-nyappdiv-2011.