Martinez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

273 A.D.2d 663, 711 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7211

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

DecidedJune 22, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 663 (Martinez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) 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

Martinez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 273 A.D.2d 663, 711 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of drug use after two urinalysis tests indicated positive results for the presence of opiates. After his administrative appeal was unsuccessful, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. We confirm.

The misbehavior report, the testimony adduced at the hearing and the two positive urinalysis test results indicating the presence of opiates provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Bacchi v Lacy, 267 AD2d 524; Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 249 AD2d 655). Petitioner’s complaints regarding the chain of custody of his urine sample are rejected (see, Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858). The correction officer responsible for collecting the sample testified that he watched as petitioner gave the sample and placed it in the refrigerator under the correction officer’s supervision. The chain of custody report indicates that the correction officer who tested the sample removed it from the refrigerator and tested it at 9:49 a.m. and 10:08 a.m. and that the results of both tests were positive.

Petitioner’s defense to the charge, i.e., that he had taken the medications which caused a false-positive result, was refuted by the testimony of an experienced correction officer and a registered nurse that none of petitioner’s medications would cause a false-positive reading for opiates (see, Matter of Hernandez v McGinnis, 251 AD2d 769). This conflict in testimony presented a credibility issue which the Hearing Officer was free to resolve against petitioner (see, Matter of Juzwa v Goord, 264 AD2d 920). We also reject petitioner’s claim that he was denied his right to call witnesses. The record adequately establishes that the testimony of the witness petitioner [664]*664requested would have been redundant to that supplied by other witnesses (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, supra). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin 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

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.

Following a tier III hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of drug use after two urinalysis tests indicated positive results for the presence of opiates. After his administrative appeal was unsuccessful, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. We confirm.

The misbehavior report, the testimony adduced at the hearing and the two positive urinalysis test results indicating the presence of opiates provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Bacchi v Lacy, 267 AD2d 524; Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 249 AD2d 655). Petitioner’s complaints regarding the chain of custody of his urine sample are rejected (see, Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858). The correction officer responsible for collecting the sample testified that he watched as petitioner gave the sample and placed it in the refrigerator under the correction officer’s supervision. The chain of custody report indicates that the correction officer who tested the sample removed it from the refrigerator and tested it at 9:49 a.m. and 10:08 a.m. and that the results of both tests were positive.

Petitioner’s defense to the charge, i.e., that he had taken the medications which caused a false-positive result, was refuted by the testimony of an experienced correction officer and a registered nurse that none of petitioner’s medications would cause a false-positive reading for opiates (see, Matter of Hernandez v McGinnis, 251 AD2d 769). This conflict in testimony presented a credibility issue which the Hearing Officer was free to resolve against petitioner (see, Matter of Juzwa v Goord, 264 AD2d 920). We also reject petitioner’s claim that he was denied his right to call witnesses. The record adequately establishes that the testimony of the witness petitioner [664]*664requested would have been redundant to that supplied by other witnesses (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, supra). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 663, 711 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack