Mason v. Goord

251 A.D.2d 829, 675 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7408
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 829 (Mason 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
Mason v. Goord, 251 A.D.2d 829, 675 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner [830]*830of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after two EMIT urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of opiates and cannabinoids. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt upon the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence, asserting that the positive test results were caused by prescription medications that he was taking at the time his urine was tested. Although petitioner submitted certain documentary evidence in support of his claim, a representative from SYVA, the company that manufactured the testing apparatus, provided testimony to the contrary. Specifically, although acknowledging some problems in the past, the representative testified that the test in question had been reformulated in 1985 for the specific purpose of eliminating such results. This testimony, together with documentation relating to the positive test results and the misbehavior report authored by the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests, was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Murphy v Selsky, 239 AD2d 724; Matter of Nina v Coombe, 233 AD2d 658).

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

Related

Willingham v. Goord
296 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Toro v. Goord
284 A.D.2d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Miller v. Goord
262 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 829, 675 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.