Larocco v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larocco v. Coughlin

181 A.D.2d 957, 581 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4037

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 957 (Larocco v. Coughlin) 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

Larocco v. Coughlin, 181 A.D.2d 957, 581 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

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

Petitioner, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, was subjected to routine urinalysis testing following his participation in the family reunion program (see, 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [a] [2] [ii]). Based upon the results of this testing, petitioner was charged with violating the disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of any controlled substance. Following a hearing petitioner was found guilty of the charge, and he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination after it was administratively affirmed.

Petitioner’s argument directed at the reliability of the EMIT test procedure which yielded positive results for cocaine in his urine is meritless (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135). The documentary evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to substantiate the required chain of custody (see, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann, 143 AD2d 475, 477), and the evidence in the record refutes petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of an employee assistant. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be lacking in merit. The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, supra, at 140) and it must, therefore, be confirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, 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

Casey, J.

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

Petitioner, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, was subjected to routine urinalysis testing following his participation in the family reunion program (see, 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [a] [2] [ii]). Based upon the results of this testing, petitioner was charged with violating the disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of any controlled substance. Following a hearing petitioner was found guilty of the charge, and he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination after it was administratively affirmed.

Petitioner’s argument directed at the reliability of the EMIT test procedure which yielded positive results for cocaine in his urine is meritless (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135). The documentary evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to substantiate the required chain of custody (see, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann, 143 AD2d 475, 477), and the evidence in the record refutes petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of an employee assistant. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be lacking in merit. The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, supra, at 140) and it must, therefore, be confirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 957, 581 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larocco-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack