Mingo v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mingo v. Goord

290 A.D.2d 787, 735 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 396

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 787 (Mingo 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

Mingo v. Goord, 290 A.D.2d 787, 735 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using controlled substances after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. To the extent that petitioner raises a substantial evidence issue herein, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the positive results of the urinalysis tests and the evidence adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Ellison v Goord, 274 AD2d 800). Likewise, we are satisfied that the testimony of the correction officers. involved in the procurement and testing of petitioner’s urine specimen, together with the documentation thereon, sufficiently established the chain of custody and adequacy of testing procedures (see, Matter of Perez v Goord, 274 AD2d 706; Matter of Ellison v Goord, supra).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, 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 Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using controlled substances after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. To the extent that petitioner raises a substantial evidence issue herein, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the positive results of the urinalysis tests and the evidence adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Ellison v Goord, 274 AD2d 800). Likewise, we are satisfied that the testimony of the correction officers. involved in the procurement and testing of petitioner’s urine specimen, together with the documentation thereon, sufficiently established the chain of custody and adequacy of testing procedures (see, Matter of Perez v Goord, 274 AD2d 706; Matter of Ellison v Goord, supra).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 787, 735 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mingo-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack