Lopez v. Goord

242 A.D.2d 816, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8679
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 11, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 816 (Lopez 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
Lopez v. Goord, 242 A.D.2d 816, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

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.

The positive urinalysis test results, confirmed by a second test, together with the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who performed the test, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the unauthorized use of controlled substances (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135). We find no error in the Hearing Officer’s [817]*817reliance upon the testimony of the facility nurse indicating that petitioner was not on any medication which would cause a false-positive in the test results (see generally, Matter of Frazier v Coombe, 224 AD2d 794, 795). Furthermore, we find that the record provides an adequate foundation for the introduction of the urinalysis test results (see, 7 NYCRR 1020.5 [a] [1]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or have been found to be without merit.

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

Related

Newgent v. Valvo
273 A.D.2d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Byas v. Goord
272 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Johnson v. Goord
268 A.D.2d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Aviles v. Selsky
264 A.D.2d 883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Rouse v. Goord
251 A.D.2d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Martinez v. Costello
251 A.D.2d 994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Rodriguez v. Coombe
249 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Hein v. Goord
249 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 A.D.2d 816, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-goord-nyappdiv-1997.